Re: [alac] Re: DRAFT: Statement on Registry Services.

[Izumi Aizu <izumi@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks Thomas, I found (only) two points:

1) Do we propose that registries have to prove that there is no harm,
and then who will evaluate that proof?

Put them into public comment, and let the Board finally decide?
Could we make some kind of suggestion about these specific procedure?
Or leave it as general?

2) I agree that registries should not leverage their monopoly position into
other markets. Do we have some more "guidelines" as to how specifically
we can define "bad behavior" by leveraging into other markets?
There can be grey areas.

I support that this be put into our "public comment" process as Denise
wrote, if we have that time frame.

Thanks,

izumi



At 11:52 04/01/11 +0100, you wrote:
> Is there any feed-back on this document?  General constituency
> statements on this are due on January 12 (that is, tomorrow), and I
> don't want to exceed that deadline too much in submitting our
> comments.
>
> Of course, if there is no interest in this issue, we can also
> refrain from submitting comments.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 2004-01-04 12:49:24 +0100, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> > From: Thomas Roessler <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> > Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2004 12:49:24 +0100
> > Subject: DRAFT: Statement on Registry Services.
> > Mail-Followup-To: alac@xxxxxxxxx
> > X-Spam-Level:
> >
> > I'm attaching a draft for what might become ALAC's statement on the
> > new registry services issue.  Comments welcome!
> >
> > Happy new year,
> > --
> > Thomas Roessler  <roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > At-Large Advisory Committee: http://alac.info/

                     >> Izumi Aizu <<
                 Asia Network Research
                        www.anr.org
                             &
 GLOCOM /Institute for HyperNetwork Society

        << Writing the Future of the History >>