[ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG

[James Love]

Milton, In fairness to the board and the ICANN staff, "the community" isn't
a very precise concept, and there has been a lot of evidence that for profit
groups have offered to finance front groups to bid for .org.   I also don't
think the board or the ICANN staff is acting out of bad motivation, even if
I disagree with some things they have done.   If we are focusing on the .org
issue, and also on the relationship between the DNSO and the board, would it
be useful to respond to the board's legitimate concerns, no matter how
awkwardly they were presented, and move this forward in a way that allows
the DNSO process to be respected, while allowing the board to ensure that
the bid is handled in a way that is creditable and fair?   I think this is
something that can be done, if both sides are willing.   Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <karl at cavebear.com>; <james.love at cptech.org>; <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
Cc: <KathrynKL at aol.com>; <mcade at att.com>; <discuss at icann-ncc.org>;
<froomkin at law.miami.edu>; <Amadeu at nominalia.com>; <jcohen at shapirocohen.com>;
<vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2002 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Board Positions on .ORG


>
> Let me see if I have interpreted the Board's position correctly.
>
> The Board does not believe that either itself or the community
> could tell the difference between a "sham" non-profit governance
> entity and a real one.
>
> And so, in order to eliminate the risk of for-profits gaining
> control of .org under a "sham," it decided to invite for-profits
> to apply for it openly.
>
> Is that about right?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>