[registrars] Ragistrar Statement friendly amendment
Nevett, Jonathon
jnevett at networksolutions.com
Tue Apr 18 15:50:52 UTC 2006
Tim: I accept your proposed change to 6a as friendly. Thanks. Jon
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2006 9:20 AM
To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
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 at globvill.de>
Date: Tue, April 18, 2006 7:47 am
To: registrars at gnso.icann.org
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
More information about the registrars
mailing list