<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
- To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 06:53:31 -0700
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.1.8
Not really. The intent is that policy will be developed from these TOR.
6a says that making such investments should not be a matter of policy,
but I would like it clear that they can be a subject of consideration
within other parts of any resultant policy.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: "Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 8:41 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Tim,
I think we addressed that issue in the response to 1a
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:20 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
Marcus, not sure I would support that amendment. I think that gets to
whether there should be a distinction at all between types of gTLDs,
sponsored and unsponsored. But that is not one of the terms of
reference for this particular PDP.
Jon, I would like to offer this friendly amendment to the response for
6a:
There should not be a policy guiding investments in development and
infrastructure. It should be determined as a matter of contract and/or
commercial discretion. However, it is appropriate for ICANN to consider
such investments when determining if the registry operator qualifies for
renewal of its agreement.
Tim
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
From: "Marcus Faure" <faure@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 7:47 am
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi all,
I suggest to alter 2b. While this may be appropriate for gTLDs,
it is not for sTLDs. sTLDs operate in a defined environment with
special needs, the GNSO has only limited insight. The delegation of
"certain" policy making decisions is appropriate - and necessary
unless you want the sTLD to stall - provided the policy
range is well-defined. The problem is to find a definition of the term
"certain".
Yours,
Marcus
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|