[ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not a new gTLD-type process

[James Love]

I was not suggesting the domain name holders decide who gets the bid, but
rather who gets the $$$ that is bid for the contract.... among competing
good causes.

 Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jeff Williams" <jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com>
To: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>
Cc: "ncc" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>; "dnso registrars" <registrars at dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:17 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not a new gTLD-type process


> Jamie and all,
>
>   Your idea below of a mechanism for Domain Name holders to
> vote on whom should get the bid amongst interested bidders
> is a good one.  However in that other classes of stakeholders
> also have an interest in .ORG, a strong yet to be created
> At-Large (INcluding stakeholder/users) would seem to be
> a more reasonable and legitimate method of arriving at
> whom should receive such a bid.
>
> James Love wrote:
>
> > We are very supportive of a prompt .org divestiture, and feel that
Verisign
> > should have been required to do even more.....    However, on the .org
> > diverstiture, I agree with the ICANN staff and others that say the issue
of
> > the criteria for who gets the bid needs to be addressed, and I haven't
seen
> > any consensus on how to do that.  We are happy with giving it to the low
> > bidder (probably the easiest way, and one that benefits domain name
holder
> > through the lower prices), and we are also happy to look a system of a
fixed
> > price and a high cash bid, with the money allocated in a fair way, such
as
> > the voting mechanism (by domain name holders).  We are uncomfortable
with a
> > bid system that is fixed price, and no clear criteria for the winning
bid.
> > We believe this is subject to abuse.
> >
> > jamie
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> > To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 9:52 PM
> > Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not a new gTLD-type process
> >
> > > >>> Chun Eung Hwi <ehchun at peacenet.or.kr> 03/13/02 18:52 PM >>>
> > >
> > > > [Louis Touton] pointed out that in last selection of
> > > > new gTLD operators, many applicants complained
> > > > about too poor interaction between Board and
> > > > applicants.
> > >
> > > ICANN management apparently was traumatized by the new
> > > gTLD process. They received a lot of criticism for it.
> > >
> > > However, those concerns should not be allowed to
> > > adversely affect the .org divestiture process.
> > > The two processes are quite different.
> > >
> > > In the new gTLD process, ICANN had no clear policy
> > > criteria to guide the decision.
> > >
> > > In the .org case it has very clear policy criteria,
> > > and it should be able to recognize bids
> > > which meet the criteria and those which don't.
> > >
> > > In the new gTLD process, ICANN had to make a choice
> > > among 43 applicants proposing over 200 TLD strings,
> > > all of which were totally different ideas. How do
> > > you decide whether a proposal to create a .tel TLD
> > > is more important than a proposal to create a .web
> > > TLD?
> > >
> > > In the .org process, there is only one TLD, its
> > > basic characteristics are well defined by the policy
> > > document, and we can expect less than 10 bids. There
> > > are fewer ideas and people to become acquainted with.
> > >
> > > In short, there is no reason to allow past
> > > experience with new gTLD awards to become an excuse
> > > for delay of the .org divestiture.
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Discuss mailing list
> > > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>
> Regards,
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
> Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
>
>
>