[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: guidance on .org

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Milton,
we need it unrestricted and to work though the market approach with the TLD 
Manager to protect its oriented nature. Touton's position is irrealistic: 
he only considers TLDs as contracts: they could be numbers as far as he is 
concerned. Users consider them as flags, make a difference on the string 
and do not care/know about Touton. Since at the end of the day the user 
pays the TLD Manager and Touton only tries to beg some money from both, 
just accept what Touton wants and let the future forget about it.

When you want to identify your priorities, just think that TLDs were here 
before the ICANN and will still be here after the ICANN.
Jefsey

PS. However we can question ourselves why Touton did not participate to the 
TF and made so much time lost by so many people. Also, could someone tell 
me where the DNSO voted an approval to the unrestricted/sponsored only 
nature of a TLD.


On 16:50 19/12/01, Milton Mueller said:
>Chris, I did strongly fight against Touton's
>intervention on the Names Council.
>
>However, I lost. Political realities make it
>completely fruitless to avoid the ICANN's
>staff's insistence that we conform
>to their template contracts. Furthermore,
>fighting about that issue would threaten
>our real policy objectives regarding .org,
>as we would be fighting about process
>and governance issues rather than defining
>policies for .org
>
>It's not ME who caved in on this issue,
>it's the rest of the Names Council, all
>of them except YJ and me. Including our
>own Vany Martinez.
>
>If there are no other supporters who
>will insist that the TF work be accepted,
>then we must work within the constraints
>imposed on us.
>
>So, do you want sponsored or unsponsored?
>
> >>> Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> 12/19/01 06:20AM >>>
>Dear Milton,
>
>At the face to face meeting of the NCDNHC in MDR a "sponsored,
>unrestricted" .org was supported overwhelming (27 to 2, I think?). It is a
>perfectly valid concept that has been discussed at length and in detail
>here. As you say, the ICANN staff however "have promoted the (false) idea
>that it "cannot be executed."" So why are you proposing that we give in to
>this false idea instead of countering it?