Re: [ga] RAA and GNSO New gTLD PDP
- To: GA <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [ga] RAA and GNSO New gTLD PDP
- From: Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2007 07:35:01 -0700 (PDT)
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=yahoo.com; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-ID; b=1/MjhDDiZzt5R4bbMwB7WA2KxmbCc2n1LooGjmgdIJ/2j8MdYTIgUgb9xY2b6jrbwV2IVRozCA9oBYBadh9YxN/Fwesheddyt0iDzaavWcC58L8uv7V17iUBtDEkh30wlhv/ITC00xF/bSp/SXby3iFSw36M70920xkwVGgAjgw=;
- In-reply-to: <email@example.com>
- Sender: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Now I find another seeming point of policy concurrence: Elisabeth wrote;
The bottom line of your scenario, la morale de l'histoire, is that
ICANN's accreditation fees are too high.
Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Karl just wrote this on a different thread but pertaining mostly to the two subjects above;
"Would you be willing to support the inclusion of a provision into
ICANN's registrar and registry contracts that gives to registrants an
explicit role as third party beneficiaries with right to bring legal
action to enforce the terms of those agreements even if ICANN or the
registrar or registry choses not to?"
In my mind I see this as a watershed issue and proposal.
I would really like to know why this concept would be alien to ICANN as a whole.
It seems perfectly logical to me.
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
Shape Yahoo! in your own image. Join our Network Research Panel today!