[registrars] .Coop Comments

[Nevett, Jonathon]

Eric:

Thanks for your response.  The sTLD sponsors are able to make policies
for their registries with or without this provision.  The proposed
unique provision for .coop doesn't change that at all.  All it would do
is permit them to seek an exemption if they don't like a community
consensus policy.  Interestingly, the other sTLDs that just went through
the contracting process (e.g., .mobi, .tel, .asia, .museum, .jobs, etc.)
did not require this provision in order to sign the agreement, and they
were satisfied with their abilities to make policies for their
communities. 

If anyone else wants to file comments, send them to
coop-renewal-2007 at icann.org

Best,

Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Brunner-Williams [mailto:brunner at abenaki.wabanaki.net] 
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Registrars Constituency; brunner at abenaki.wabanaki.net
Subject: Re: [registrars] .Coop Comments 

Jonathon,

I didn't agree with you. The point of having sponsored registries is
to place some policy authority with the sponsor, so that .coop is in
fact for cooperatives and has value as a brand, aand .aero is for bits
that fly (and have value in being named).

I think you should simply come out openly against the stld model, as
Milton Meuller and Jeff Williams did during the Working Group C process,
after I proposed the stld model in the first place. Your reasoning and
theirs is indistinguishable -- no policy delegation to the sponsor(s).

I'll mention again, the non-utility, even counter-utility, of pretending
that niche markets are the same as the CNO market, or that ICANN
process,
and DoC process, is so hosed that any language in the .museum or .coop
or
.coop agreements can be hijacked by the CNO operators.

If the later part is even proximal to being true, then we're wasting our
business time "containing" the CN(O) operator(s) and should go back to
hardball with ICANN, where we were before we gave up on having any real
control over how our fees were increassed, or spent.

Eric