[ncdnhc-discuss] Important: Board action on .org divestiture

[James Love]

Alejandro and Milton.  I'm in an FTC hearing this morning on a different
topic.  I can respond more thoughtfully this afternoon, and I will.  But in
general most of our concerns can be reconciled most of the TF
recommendations for .org, if one wanted to do so.   For example, the
non-profit entity could be required to seek competitive bids for registry
services, decentralizing this task from the overworked ICANN staff.   Also,
our concerns over the UDRP and the "marketing" issue are pretty close.  I
think the larger issue for us is how does ICANN pick among competing
proposals?   Here too ICANN could choose models such as letting incumbent
.org domain name holders vote to pick the group to manage their domains,
which is a less subjective selection mechanism.  The proposal supported by
the most domain holders wins?  What's wrong with this?   But also, I agree
with Alejandro, that one has to discuss a bit the rationale for having a
non-profit involved in the first place.  With a fixed price contract, and no
competitive cash bid, I would definately favor the nonprofit.... it is less
of a rip-off.   But there may be alternatives that make sense too.    But
also Milton and others have an important point.  Regardless of what I think,
there is a process that ICANN is supposed to follow.  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alejandro Pisanty - DGSCA y FQ, UNAM" <apisan at servidor.unam.mx>
To: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
Cc: "NCDNHC list" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 2:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Important: Board action on .org divestiture
> The DNSO's insistence on "marketing" was severely attacked by Prof. Abril,
> as it had already been questioned in previous fora. I disagree with your
> statement that the DNSO document was non-controversial. Even after your
> activity, our own James Love made clear some serious issues which directly
> bear on the choice of good service and pricing over other considerations.