[ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not anewgTLD-typeprocess

[James Love]

So allow me to say that I don't think a system that is based upon the ICANN
board picking among the most beautiful is a very good system.

Is there an ICANN 201 course that needs to be taught?

  Jamie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <james.love at cptech.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:06 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not anewgTLD-typeprocess


The Board.

Is there an ICANN 101 course we can run people through?

>>> "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org> 03/14/02 04:41PM >>>
Who will judge the beauty contest?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <love at cptech.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not a newgTLD-typeprocess


> One would have to read the bids. It depends on what they propose.
> It depends on how much support each one has from the
> noncommercial community.
>
> Obviously in any "beauty contest" type of selection process,
> which ICANN's management will not let us get out of, there will
> be a subjective element. But there are clear criteria for
> excluding bids that, say, propose to restrict dot org or
> is a purely commercial entity or doesn't have any support.
>
> >>> "James Love" <love at cptech.org> 03/14/02 03:09PM >>>
> Ok.  Two groups bid to get .org.     Jamie and friends in one group.
> Milton and friends in another group.  Who gets the bid and why?  Jamie
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> To: <love at cptech.org>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 1:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Org divestiture: not a new
> gTLD-typeprocess
>
>
> >>> "James Love" <love at cptech.org> 03/14/02 00:55 AM >>>
> > 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.
>
> Apparently Jamie has not read the .org policy statement
> that passed with unanimous consensus through a
> 6-month bottom-up process.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>