[ncdnhc-discuss] [Fwd: [council] Comments of Report of .org Task Force]

[Marc Schneiders]

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001, at 01:22 [=GMT-0500], Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:

[...]
> From: Louis Touton <touton at icann.org>
[...]
> To the Names Council:

> On 1 December 2001, a "Final Report of the ORG Divestiture Task Force"
> was submitted for consideration at the 13 December 2001 Names Council
> teleconference.  The report raises significant practical and legal
> concerns
[...]
> (a) Scope of representation.  Because the TLD is proposed to be
> unrestricted (both as to existing registrations and future
> registrations), the affected community is unbounded.

Not exactly true, but even if...

> The justification
> of delegating ICANN's responsibility to an organization that can
> represent a narrower community in a more focused way (than ICANN) is
> simply absent.  Correspondingly, the Sponsor of a wholly unrestricted
> TLD carries the full weight of representing the entire Internet
> community.  Since it carries ICANN's full representational
> responsibility, the sponsor in essence becomes a second ICANN, which
> should be subject to all the procedures ICANN must follow, including
> taking into account all the views of all segments of the Internet
> community.

So what? Do you think it _must_ do worse than ICANN? There are provisions
about this in the report too. Maybe put into the document outlining what
the SO should do, that it tries to be more representative and at a quicker
pace than ICANN? And don't forget to add that it cannot change it bylaws
in this respect.

-- 
Marc Schneiders (personal capacity)