[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

[Adam Peake]

>Adam:
>It's interesting to read these comments.
>
>What Andrew McLaughlin said to the Board was perfectly
>consistent with what he said to those of us involved.
>He correctly represented the NC Task Force report -
>that it only permitted, not recommended, use of
>surplus funds for other things. He expressed concerns about
>subjective criteria and asked for the noncommercial community
>broadly and the NCDNHC to provide guidance to the Board in
>making such a selection.
>
>Various people were taking steps to do develop a
>coordinated Noncommercial effort to provide guidance
>to the Board.


Seems to me that this ties to one of Amadeu's questions (roughly, 
what is this policy body thing and what is its purpose?)

Perhaps trying to answer that question and addressing the concerns 
raised by Louis and Andrew might be helpful?  Answers from the Task 
Force members collectively (you have the expertise and by all 
accounts worked well together) with support of the names council 
might be very useful in clearing up misunderstandings.

Or you might feel it's a waste of time to try. And I wouldn't blame 
you if you did...

Thanks,

Adam



>In short, on the surface there seemed to be a willingness on
>the part of the staff to accept the TF report and work
>with it, while recognizing the difficult time constraints.
>
>So whatever happened between the time of that discussion
>and the Board's decision is a mystery to me. I was not at
>Accra and have no idea.
>
>It's not my purpose to point fingers of blame, but I still
>believe strongly that a major mistake was made, possibly
>through just confusion or fear or ignorance. And contrary
>to Alejandro's typically divisive and unconstructive assertions,
>it's not about my role at all - it's about the role of the DNSO
>in ICANN policy formulation. You just can't set up a formal
>structure for policy development and ignore it at crunch time.
>The DNSO has been effectively killed by this decision.
>There are numerous other decisions and processes that
>undermined the DNSO, but this one was the coup de grace.
>
>>>>  Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 04/03/02 06:49AM >>>
>Transcripts of the Accra public meeting include the discussion of
>dot.org
>
>See the last items in the morning session file, at
><http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-morning-13mar02.htm>, Louis
>Touton's and Andrew McLaughlin's comments.  They are concerned about
>details (that staff and board have to fill out) timing and criteria
>for judging applications. Timing in particular is a bind, but so are
>other problems that seem to be bothering Louis and Andrew.  Any way
>for the names council task force to reform (even informally) to
>provide guidance?
>
>And in the afternoon session,
><http://www.icann.org/accra/captioning-afternoon-13mar02.htm>,
>opening comment, Amadeu asks a question of the task force/names
>council. About marketing and policy oversight body.
>
>One of the more troubling rumors (as far as I'm concerned) about
>dot.org is one that says VeriSign plans to establish a not for profit
>entity to enter a bid. I hear of people trying to drum up support for
>such an effort among Asia Pacific region non profits. Idea of
>VeriSign divesting org to itself is a little troublesome. (and with
>my weird foreigner's view of US taxes I can imagine them ending up
>with a tax break of more than $5 million for giving $5 million to
>themselves :-)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Adam
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss