Comment today,please: Proposed final statementon gTLDservice changes

[Milton Mueller]

Marc:
This is a generalized policy issue. The PDP will determine
how ICANN deals with ALL registries. At this stage we
are supposed to be dealing with general principles,
not specific incidents. It is inappropriate to suggest
that this has anything to do with "being nice to PIR"


>>> Marc Schneiders <marc at SCHNEIDERS.ORG> 01/13/04 10:13AM >>>
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, at 10:08 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:

> I support this statement for the most part.
> Would prefer to delete the following sentences:
>
> >>> Marc Schneiders <marc at SCHNEIDERS.ORG> 01/13/04 07:37AM >>>
> >As things are consumers are trapped
> >between ICANN never approving these domains when Verisign started a
> >'testbed', ICANN redelegating .org, and PIR that will surely point to
> >its contract, saying that it is not their fault but Verisign's. So
> >thanks to the contractual structure used by ICANN, consumers have no
> >recourse.
>
> The link between Harold's "shell game" metaphor and the
> PIR-IDN situation is not at all clear to me. Also, it is unacceptable
> to accuse PIR of hypothetical behavior in a policy statement.
> ("PIR will surely...." but have they?)

I understand that you want to be nice to PIR. I would like to do that
too. But not at the cost of letting them get away with everything.
They simply do not respond. This is not the first time PIR plays hide
until the storm is gone.
Try to get a statement out of them today...