<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] A Concrete "Thin Contract" Proposal
- To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [ga] A Concrete "Thin Contract" Proposal
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2005 03:37:02 -0800 (PST)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=mHqrKwVZ8qUAMbsQHo9HbXGg62NQZTa7WuDb1j+dofU9/YobPzj6PLfGZUWO4EsrC4/3e/uEe5Bigg31q6PoPVUxDOWzucq+Ssp6h85+10ibVnC5wT7HFkwNEeBIOyCcUfE92KZ9ik0Io3zC+aT37R4ajxVzIjzQSHz9PT8ECBk= ;
- In-reply-to: <20051229014759.6984.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
How about this one; in blah blah blah 2001 i wrote?
Ah what the heck look it up on the GA Review.
e
Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In August of 2003 David Johnson and Susan Crawford
(now a Board member) put forward a great contribution
entitled, "A Concrete "Thin Contract" Proposal" that
called for a substantially thinner contract for use by
ICANN and the registries. ICANN seems to be moving in
this direction (at least in view of what we saw in the
proposed .com registry agreement). I like some of
their proposed policies, such as "The maximum price
charged by Registry Operator for renewal registrations
may not exceed the pricing for initial registrations."
Their document (complete with a model registry
contract) is well worth reading:
http://forum.icann.org/mtg-cmts/stld-rfp-comments/general/msg00039.html
__________________________________
Yahoo! for Good - Make a difference this year.
http://brand.yahoo.com/cybergivingweek2005/
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|