ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

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

  • To: <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>, <philip.sheppard@xxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [net-com] Draft report of the dot net sub-committee v3
  • From: <Lucy.Nichols@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 17:43:50 +0300
  • Cc: <net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: AcQ8yxjfkN8lvuYMSt6YpS50VKVHWgAGxxTw
  • Thread-topic: [net-com] Draft report of the dot net sub-committee v3

In reviewing the draft I find no mention of resolving disputes between parties regarding whether particular parties may register or maintain particular domain names --- is it buried somewhere?


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of ext Ross Wm. Rader
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2004 6:24 AM
To: Philip Sheppard
Cc: net-com@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [net-com] Draft report of the dot net sub-committee v3

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
> staff.
> I propose to use this version as the basis for our call and hopeful
> agreement on Tuesday.
> Philip

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 

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

- 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

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