NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:40:33 +0900
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (35 lines)
At 11:02 AM -0400 10/18/06, Milton Mueller wrote:
>  >>> ( Adam Peake <[log in to unmask]> 10/18/06 7:32 AM >>>
>
>>Afilias seems to be doing just fine), but on ISOC's promises of what
>>it would do with the cash it received from ORG registrants.  I think
>>we should be requiring a review of whether those promises have been
>>met, to the same standard we would promises of technical performance.
>>Then they get their renewal.
>
>Adam, that is exactly what a presumptive renewal policy does. If they
>perform as promised, the incumbent gets the renewal. If they don't, then
>you have a rebid.
>


OK, then I am likely misunderstanding the meaning of "presumption", 
the difference between

1/ by default we accept your doing what you said you would unless it 
is contested by a third party.
and,
2/ we will put in checks and balance to ensure you're doing what you 
said you'd do.

The first is what I thought "presumptive renewal" meant in practise. 
And as this is ICANN I much prefer the second which has more active 
safeguards.

However, if this is agreed NCUC policy then so be it. My comments are 
too late -- never mind.

Thanks,

Adam

ATOM RSS1 RSS2