Re: [wg-c] Recap from past threads...

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

Sunday, August 22, 1999, 6:50:18 PM, Ross Wm. Rader <ross@ebarn.com> wrote:

> I thought that we had already hashed through a lot of these points a few
> weeks back...(and I'm just as guilty of rehash as the next)

> To recap past threads ("Eureka?" "Public resources - Reply")

> - reclamation and retender is in the best interests of sld holders if the
> registry is not performing up to the specification of a contract between
> the registry and ICANN.

> - TLDs can be held as IP until such time that the contract between the
> registry is pulled by ICANN for non-performance or insolvency.

> - the contract between the registry and ICANN must be strongly worded and
> extremely concise so as to eliminate all possible confusion as to
> intepretation and rights of either party.

> - that the number of TLDs a registry can operate must, at least at first,
> be limited in number but not so limited as to disallow the incumbent NSI's
> participation in the process.


> I think that this is where Roeland, Chris, William and I got to before the
> straw vote...

> Thoughts?


Thanks for making it so concise and straightforward.

I think the reasonable contractual obligations are our best hope of
finding a compromise consensus, and would like to see a subgroup
formed to start working on these.

--
William X. Walsh - DSo Internet Services
Email: william@dso.net  Fax:(209) 671-7934
Editor of http://www.dnspolicy.com/

(IDNO MEMBER)
Support the Cyberspace Association, the 
constituency of Individual Domain Name Owners 
http://www.idno.org