[ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Chris Bailey]

>Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:22:41 -0800
>To: barbara.simons at mindspring.com
>From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG
>Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>,
>    Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa>,
>    Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, discuss at icann-ncc.org
>
>At 11:08 PM 12/27/2001 -0800, Barbara Simons wrote:
> >I agree with Milton, Michael, and the majority of the
> >constituency on this issue.
>
>all these statements of support for a particular person are really great.
>
>the only problem is that there is no clear statement of what actual
>position or decision is being supported.
>
>so all these statements do not help to establish what group consensus is
>concerning any particular point.
>
>Perhaps folks could consider being more specific about the issue and
>decision they are supporting, rather than making the matter personal?
>
>d/
>
>
>----------
>Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
>Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464

I agree. Although I think there certainly was a near consensus for 
Sponsored, Unrestricted, I think Vany is right to say:

 > > And, as far as I know, there's no official support yet from this
 > > constituency for
 > > Unesponsored Unrestricted.

Milton, Barbara and others can not interpret a near consensus for SU as 
meaning there is one for UU.

But so long as SU is being ruled out this simply means Vany is reviving old 
arguments in favour of Restricted that *were lost* some time ago.

There has been only one near consensus established and that is for SU. So 
let's proceed with whatever is necessary to bring this to fruition.

If, as Vany claims, the correct procedure for carrying forward our original 
near consensus position of Sponsored, Unrestricted is:

>Then, first before proposing that TLD belongs to a category that doesn't
>exists, it has to be
>proposed a new category for ICANN creates it.
>
>Maybe you want to propose a resolution for the next ICANN meeting where
>says something like:
>"The NCDNHC requests the creation of a new category which is Sponsored
>Unrestricted".
>Futher you can ask in this resolution to the NCDNHC Names Council
>representatives that, if such resolution
>if passed, our NC representatives should seek support from the Names
>Council also.

Then let's do it.

Chris Bailey