ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005

  • To: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2005 19:07:58 -0500
  • Cc: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>, "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <41DC7F05.8080205@afilias.info>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <200501051341.j05DfmWt008323@turbo.aim.be> <41DC7922.8040003@tucows.com> <41DC7F05.8080205@afilias.info>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0 (Windows/20041206)

On 1/5/2005 6:57 PM Ken Stubbs noted that:
Fellow councilors

i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff). I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues.

I don't believe that Philip was calling for a PDP, rather, my understanding is that he is calling for a analysis of the salient issues so the GNSO Council could decide if a PDP is appropriate. My comments were meant to limit the scope of this analysis to the policy failures that led to Philip's observations without including business model or operation practice.

Given the proper foundation, I think this is a perfectly healthy undertaking.



"In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress."
        - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>