On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, at 17:10 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> > >>> Marc Schneiders <[log in to unmask]> 11/07/03 04:36PM >>>
> > >I tried to sow another path in my earlier email. Sitefinder is not
> > >about new services, but about abusing a service contract for making
> > >money without introducing any new service. Sitefinder may be construed
> > >as a service to users of the internet (as Verisign did). But not as a
> > >service to their customers, domain name registrants. What Verisign did
> > >with Sitefinder amounts to the same as my bank giving info about my
> > >bad credit to loan sharks. (I am streching it a bit, ok.)
> >
> > Right. I see what you mean. SiteFinder definitely is not a service to
> > ..com/.net registration customers.
> 
> So the whole topic of 'new registry services' has nothing (or not
> much) to do with it. So why the hurry?

Anyhow, Sitefinder case is one registry's service and the present contract 
was used to make some sanction on that. And here, the issue of procedure 
for initiating new registry service has come up. Why so super-hurry? 
Council decided to roll out new PDP on that and PDP requires so 
super-hurry actions. PDP timeframe is very challenging and to be reviewed 
soon.

Milton is right. ICANN management and staff aren't doing it unilaterally.
They are trying to be more interactive. Excerpt from Draft Version of 
Staff Manager’s Issues Report is also based on consituencies' comments in 
Carthage. That's why now constituencies' comments are required for the 
issue report.

I agree to Milton's initial short statement proposal because it is 
focusing our concerns.


regards,

Chun

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------
Chun Eung Hwi
General Secretary, PeaceNet | phone:     (+82)  2-2166-2205
Seoul Yangchun P.O.Box 81   |   pcs:     (+82) 019-259-2667
Seoul, 158-600, Korea  	    | eMail:   [log in to unmask]
------------------------------------------------------------