[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council Task Force ORG policy

[Milton Mueller]

Adam:
First, the NC rarely gets through the items that are already
on its agenda. Second, even if I could get it on it's quite 
dangerous to throw things onto the NC agenda without
adequate preparation. The majority of the NC often takes
policy positions that are diametrically opposed to our interests.
Even when we have common ground, an educational process
needs to take place first. 

As for space on the agenda, please note that the largest
item is, ahem, "security".

The language on CEDRP was a
cautious way of avoiding ICANN's inevitable request for
a restrictive dispute policy in a chartered domain. I am 
not willing to open that issue outside the TF. 

Remember, this is the draft for public comment, not
the final document. There is an opportunity for everyone
to make their views known on what is in there now.
We can modify it based on those comments later.

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/04/01 10:13AM >>>
>Surely you jest.  Almost nothing in the new gTLD contracts springs from
>any process other than Louis Touton.


Then I ask our Adcom members to add the CEDRP as an emergency item 
for discussion during the next NC meeting?

There must be space on the agenda as everyone seems to agree that the 
GA chair item is a silly formality (including the names council 
chair.)  Quite a few NC members were more than a little put out when 
Verisign contract negotiations bypassed the DNSO, this seems no less 
of a slight.

Thanks,

Adam

Adam Peake
GLOCOM  Tokyo


>Although touted as 'template' agreements and 'models' they were negotiated
>in secret, with strong-arm tactics and without any input from affected
>third parties.
>
>Exhibit A for What's Wrong With ICANN.
>
>cf. http://www.icannwatch.org/article.php?sid=355 
>
>On Thu, 4 Oct 2001, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  >I support ORG being sponsored and unrestricted.  But, is it a good
>>  >idea at this stage to deny any opportunity for innovation wrt some
>>  >kind of restriction beyond end user choice?
>>  >
>  > >What is a "CEDRP"
>>
>>
>>  Someone kindly answered my question:
>>
>> 
>><http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/sponsored/sponsorship-agmt-att12-08sep01.htm>
>>
>>   From which consensus policy did this piece of work come from?  I
>>  thought the DNSO organized a couple of working groups on IP issues
>>  and new TLDs, and there's a UDRP task force ongoing now. There was
>>  absolutely nothing like this in any work I remember.
>>
>>  Thanks,
>>
>>  Adam
>>
>>
>>  >Thanks,
>>  >
>>  >Adam
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >
>>  >>This is the draft of the policy that will go out for public comment.
>>  >>The NC Task Force has been working together reasonably well.
>>  >>There are some possible tensions around the issue of
>>  >>marketing restrictions on registrars, but on the whole everyone
>>  >>seems to buy into the specific approach here. You comments
>>  >  >welcome.
>>  >  >
>>  _______________________________________________
>>  Discuss mailing list
>>  Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>>  http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
>>
>
>--
>		Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org 
>A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm 
>U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
>+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm 
>                  -->It's very hot and humid here.<--

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss