Re: [ga] If PIR is violating its own advisory charter, why do they expect to have .org renewed?

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Presumptive renewel is a non-starter. It is exactly the opposite of how it should be. It should be presumptive open bidding on expirations. 
  However from an investor point of view i can see the necessity for such a concept. You need some sort of gauranteed continuance. But therein lies the problem with the gauranteed continuance there is no reason to follow the plan and every reason to hedge where you can to make money with no accountability.
   
  e

George Kirikos <gkirikos@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  Hello,

According to the .org Advisory Council Charter:

http://www.pir.org/PDFs/pir_ac_charter.pdf

"Section 3:... No two members of the Council will be from the same
non-commercial organization."

Michael Mann and Angela Stuber are both from Grassroots.org:

http://www.pir.org/AboutPIR/CouncilMembers.aspx
http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=Highlights&name=Content+Detail+-+Volunteer
http://www.grassroots.org/page.ww?section=About&name=Board+of+Directors

Apparently, when this was brought to the attention of PIR, instead of
rectifying the issue, they "did not see a problem with it".

http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&postid=327276#post327276

I have nothing against Grassroots.org, but perhaps ICANN and the public
should seriously consider whether PIR, an organization that seemingly
has no regard for their own charter, should be operating such an
important registry as .org. Indeed, with presumptive renewal, it would
be next to impossible to remove a registry operator.

This is yet another reason why presumptive renewal should never exist
in any registry agreement.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/


 				
---------------------------------
Want to be your own boss? Learn how on  Yahoo! Small Business.