William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 07-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> > The problem is that I am not convinced that all of the
> incumbent ccTLDs (or
> > even a majority thereof) or the incumbent gTLD share your commitment to
> > competition, and the Paris draft puts them in a position to block it.
>
> Granted, you've never been on any of the ccTLD mailing lists,
> such as the wwTLD
> list hosted by ripe and the aptld list. I was in the past when I
> was working
> with .TJ. I believe it is fair to say that as a group they are
> as much for
> introducing competition as the rest of us.
>
> But I don't see the introduction of new gTLDs as something that would come
> under this clause at all.
>
> And remember, it isn't a Veto power, and it doesn't give them the
> ability to
> block it, just to make sure that substantive changes affecting
> operations are
> not adopt hastily or capriciously. It provides a fair review
> process, nothing
> more.
>
> What I would like to see from you (and I am sure the drafters
> would, as they
> have made clear they are STILL open to changes) is some modified
> language for
> this clause that would be more acceptable to you. Remember, we
> all have to
> compromise to reach an overall agreement. I don't agree with
> every provision
> in the Paris draft either, but I recognize that I won't be happy with
> everything and that my opinion is not the only one.
>
> What would you suggest? I'd like to hear it, and perhaps the
> participants here
> can contribute and we can come up with something that is workable.
>
AIP and NSI came pretty close two days ago:
* It is proposed that Section 5.9 be amended to read:
In addition to filing a Fair Hearing Petition, any member of the
Registry, Registrar or ISP constituency which may be required to
implement a proposed policy pursuant to a contract with ICANN may ask,
after the First Request for Comments is issued, that such proposed policy
recommendation undergo an implementation preview from the registries. The
Names Council shall establish an implementation preview process that will
determine whether a substantial plurality of those registries which vote
to support such implementation or are or will be contractually committed
or able to do so. Policies that do not meet this criteria may be
forwarded to ICANN by the DNSO, but only if the Names Council
specifically informs the ICANN Board that the policy has not passed the
implementation preview, along with the details of the results. Those
participating in the implementation preview shall collaborate to submit a
timely report on their actions and views, including a record of the vote
of each member of the constituency, to the Names Council, and if
necessary, this Report will be forwarded to the ICANN Board with any
proposal which has not passed the implementation preview.
