ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

Re: [net-com] Draft report of the dot net sub-committee v3

  • To: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [net-com] Draft report of the dot net sub-committee v3
  • From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 07:24:13 -0400
  • Cc: net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • In-reply-to: <200405140825.i4E8PLJP014622@wawserver.aim.be>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <200405140825.i4E8PLJP014622@wawserver.aim.be>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5a (Windows/20040113)

On 5/14/2004 4:25 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
In preparation for our call on Tuesday 18 May, please find attached version
three of the draft report on dot net.
The new version reflects some minor changes from version two following input
from the committee, some clarifying edits by myself, and input from ICANN
I propose to use this version as the basis for our call and hopeful
agreement on Tuesday.


I have prepared some comments inline with this draft (edits actually) and I would be please to discuss them on the call today. A few notes in the meantime....

Section 2

- I added a whole whack of technical references from the existing .net agreement.

- I changed the second bullet so that it is clear that we are interested in seeing applicants demonstrate their capabilities within their applications.

- I changed the third bullet so that it was made more clear that applicants must fully document their migration plan from the existing registry operator, if appropriate and removed the specific references regarding Whois. I don't believe that it is appropriate to co-mingle the various migrations that might happen and would in fact prefer to see .net's migration to whatever-whois-comes-next and EPP happen outside of this process.

- Fourth bullet - just clarified it slightly.

Section 3

- Third bullet - as I mentioned on the call, we should be soliciting statements of fact and not promises. Where possible we need to phrase our criteria in such a way that it solicits applicants to supply evidence of their capabilities and not promises of performance.

Section 4

- minor stuff here. Removed the reference to Verisign and cleaned up the product names.

Section 5

- minor editorial stuff.




"Don't be too timid and squeamish about your actions. All life is an experiment. The more experiments you make the better." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Got Blog? http://www.blogware.com
My Blogware: http://www.byte.org

Attachment: Dot net committee v3-rwr.doc
Description: MS-Word document

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