Fw: [council] Facts about the status of ORG

["Erica Roberts" <erica.roberts@bigpond.com>]

I note that this matter  (the proposed Verising contract and its
implications) has been referred to the NC by Louis but is not included in
our agenda for Melbourne.  Since this matter has been the subject of
significant discussion on the GA list, I think we could be in some
difficulty if we simply ignore the issue.  I suggest we consider what, if
any, response we need to make - should we be facilitating the development of
a consensus view - or other advice to ICANN?  Should we be content to leave
the matter to be dealt with by the Board or should we be seeking to
establish a timeframe for consultation/consensus building? etc.
I'd be interested to hear comments from other NC members.

erica
----- Original Message -----
From: "Louis Touton" <touton@icann.org>
To: <council@dnso.org>
Cc: "Alejandro Pisanty" <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 1:04 AM
Subject: Re: [council] Facts about the status of ORG


> Milton Mueller wrote:
> >
> > Louis:
>
> > [snip]
>
> > I have another important question for you. I am rather
> > puzzled by your participation in this debate in a way
> > that reveals a strong commitment to the policy that ORG
> > should be run in a certain way. I am new to the Names Council,
> > so forgive me if this is an uninformed question, but I was
> > under the impression that domain name policies are supposed
> > to be made by Board members, constituency members and their
> > elected representatives. My understanding is that you are
> > hired by ICANN as a staff lawyer to carry out the corporation's
> > policies, not to make them. I certainly value and welcome your
> > legal advice, but I don't think it is appropriate for you to
> > be actively promoting a specific policy approach. Am I incorrect?
> >
>
> Milton,
>
> I've looked over the note to which you are responding above (I've copied
> it below for reference, omitting the quotations from earlier materials
> to avoid any confusion about what I said), and I don't understand what
> you are characterizing as my "participation in this debate in a way that
> reveals a strong commitment to the policy that ORG should be run in a
> certain way."  I have a variety or responsibilities at ICANN and my note
> was intended to fulfill several of them:
>
>    1.  Correcting, as a factual matter, some assertions about historical
> matters pertaining to RFC 1591 and operation of the domain name system,
> which was and is coordinated by the IANA, the operations of which I am
> responsible for overseeing.
>
>    2.  Confirming that the .org restrictions have not been actively
> enforced since 1996 of the .org limitations and providing the council
> with a copy of the Gomes memo as background.  As a member of ICANN
> staff, I am responsible (as is Andrew) to provide information to the
> Names Council in support of the DNSO's policy-development activities.
>
>    3.  Reminding the Names Council of my legal advice that the DNSO has
> a role with regard to policy development concerning .org restrictions,
> in the event that the VeriSign proposal is accepted.  As you know, I am
> General Counsel and as such am responsible for advising the various
> parts of ICANN on compliance with the bylaws and other legal issues.
>
>    4.  Noting that the Names Council should consider a "variety of
> views" on the issue, in view of the DNSO's design to develop policy
> recommendations through a consensus-based process and the presence of
> many different views in the community.  This is, again, bylaw advice.
>
> I did give a less official piece of advice in the last sentence:  that a
> change back to enforced restrictions should be done in a manner that
> provides a reasonable transition to registrants.  This advice is based
> on my personal experience from the IANA's administration of 100+
> protocol spaces in which similar issues arise.
>
> Milton, I'm not personally committed to any particular approach to
> restrictions in .org, but I do view it as entirely appropriate to do
> what I can to promote an open discussion on the matter that considers
> the views of all the affected participants and that is informed by
> accurate factual underpinnings.
>
> Louis
>
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Facts about the status of ORG
> Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2001 15:26:49 -0800
> From: Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>
> To: council@dnso.org
> CC: Alejandro Pisanty <apisan@servidor.unam.mx>
> References: <saa26017.015@gwia201.syr.edu>
>
> [omitting material copied from Milton's earlier posting]
>
> Milton,
>
> What you say is "indisputable" as a matter of history is directly
> contrary to the authoritative RFC (1591) on the question, which you cite
> only a few lines above your claim of indisputability.
>
> RFC 1591 says that .org "is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for
> organizations that didn't fit anywhere else."  Note the word
> "organizations"--that's a lot different than all "registrants".  Note
> also that it is intended only for those organizations that don't fit in
> the other TLDs.  That includes .com, which RFC 1591 says "is intended
> for commercial entities, that is companies."  In other words, the class
> of registrants for which .org was intended, according to RFC 1591, is no
> broader than non-commercial organizations (they weren't supposed to be
> edu-qualified or net-qualified, either).  In my mind, that is quite
> close to non-profit organizations (though admittedly there are a lot of
> "non-profit" commercial organizations these days :]], so maybe the term
> "non-profit organization" should be replaced with the narrower term
> "non-commercial organization").
>
> [another omission of material copied from Milton's earlier posting]
>
> You are correct that the .org restrictions have not been enforced since
> 1996.  For some background on why enforcement was stopped, see Chuck
> Gomes' note from March 2000, copied at the bottom of this message.  In
> the light of the lack of resources to enforce, it is gratifying that
> many people in the Internet community have acted with restraint in
> continuing to observe the stated restrictions on a voluntary basis.
>
> I have previously advised (see
> <http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html>) the Names
> Council of my opinion, as ICANN General Counsel, that the future
> restrictions (if any) on .org appear to involve a significant change in
> substantive policy that should, under Article VI, Section 2(c) of the
> ICANN bylaws, be referred to the DNSO in the event that the VeriSign
> proposal is accepted.  If the matter is referred, the DNSO will likely
> want to consider a variety of views, including those of many in the
> non-commercial community who whould like to see .org decommercialized.
> But (speaking personally here) I would hope that any move to once again
> begin enforcing the .org restrictions is done in a manner that
> reasonably protects the legitimate expectations of the existing
> registrants.
>
> Louis