Re: [council] Dot Org TF report - AMENDED VERSION FOR NC ADOPTION

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany@sdnp.org.pa>]

Hi Philip, Milton and all:

I suggest that in the language of the amendment proposed, clarifies that
providers of technical operations can be either commercial or
non-commercial/non-profit
and that also the Sponsoring Organization can be itself the provider
of technical operations in their own name, if they intend to do this.

> 4. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization
> Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated
> to a non-profit Sponsoring Organization (SO) with
> international support and participation from current
> .org registrants and non-commercial organizations
> inside and outside of the ICANN process. It should be
> authorized to contract with commercial service
> providers to perform technical and service functions.
> Either new or existing organizations should be
> eligible to apply to become the SO.

I suggest that this paragraph clarifies participation support be limited
to those
Registrants that are the intended community defined by the SO (plus the
non-commercial organizations, of course).
Lets remember that in .ORG there are Registrants that are
purely Commercial amongst other kind of activities that we can find in
.ORG very far away from 
the legimit non-commercial activities.

Best Regards
Vany



> Philip Sheppard wrote:
> 
> Names Council,
> in discussion with the chair of the dot org TF, Milton, we have
> produced a revised text of the final report of the TF. This clarifies
> the meanings intended by the TF, does not change the substance and
> should help meet a number of the issues raised by Louis Touton.
> (Changes are in paragraphs 1, 2b and 7) .
> 
> The text below will be proposed for NC adoption at the Dec 14 meeting.
> Philip.
> ---------------------------------
> 
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> (v 4.4, December 13, 2001)
> 
> 1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored Domain.
> 
> The new .org TLD should be sponsored according to the guidelines in
> paragraph 2 but ultimately there should be no enforcement
> of eligibility restrictions.
> 
> Sponsored domains are normally associated with
> smaller TLDs that impose restrictions on who can
> register within them.
> 
> Unrestricted eligibility is required because:
> · The population of the .org TLD is already mixed,
>   and it would be costly and destabilizing to evict
>   thousands of current registrants
> · There is no clear, simple, easily applied and
>   globally applicable definition of "non-commercial"
>   activity
> · End user self-selection of TLDs has already done a
>   reasonably good job of giving the .org TLD a
>   distinct identity, despite certain registrar
>   marketing practices
> 
> Sponsorship is beneficial because it can give the
> non-commercial Internet community greater
> influence over:
> · The image of the .org domain presented to the domain
>   name-using public
> · The distribution of any surplus revenues generated
>   by the registration business
> · Contracts with registrars
> · The selection of the management personnel.
> 
> 2. Guidelines for Sponsorship
> 
> 2a. Definition of the .org community
> Each candidate Sponsoring Organization SO)
> should include in its application a definition of the
> relevant community for which names in the .org TLD
> are intended, detailing the types of registrants
> who constitute the target market for .org, and
> proposing marketing and branding practices oriented
> toward that community. The marketing practices
> should not encourage defensive or duplicative
> registrations.
> 
> Regarding the definition of the relevant community,
> the definition should include not only formal
> non-commercial and non-profit organizations, but
> individuals and groups seeking an outlet for
> non-commercial expression and information
> exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational
> and political organizations, and business
> partnerships with non-profits and community
> groups for social initiatives.
> 
> 2b. Definition of marketing practices
> Regarding marketing and branding practices, the
> sponsoring organization should propose specific
> practices designed to differentiate the domain,
> promote and attract registrations from the defined
> community, and minimize defensive registrations.
> Such practices may include qualification of
> registrars, co-marketing campaigns, or other methods.
> DNSO policy favors marketing proposals that promote
> and enhance differentiation while minimizing
> bureaucracy, enforcement costs, and restrictions on
> registrars. DNSO policy prohibits onerous
> accreditation fees or any other new financial barriers
> to registrars unrelated to marketing policy
> enforcement.
> 
> 3. Unrestricted Eligibility
> With a definition of the served community and
> appropriate marketing practices in place, the
> sponsoring organization and the registrars should
> rely entirely on end-user choice to determine who
> registers in .org.
> 
> Specifically, the new entity:
> 
> · Must not evict existing registrants who do not
>   conform to its target community. The transition
>   must make it clear at the outset that current
>   registrants will not have their registrations
>   cancelled nor will they be denied the opportunity to
>   renew their names or transfer them to others.
> 
> · Must not attempt to impose any new prior
>   restrictions on people or organizations attempting
>   to register names
> 
> · Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
>   any new dispute initiation procedures that could
>   result in the cancellation of domain delegations.
>   The UDRP would apply as per section 6 below, however.
> 
> 4. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization
> Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated
> to a non-profit Sponsoring Organization (SO) with
> international support and participation from current
> .org registrants and non-commercial organizations
> inside and outside of the ICANN process. It should be
> authorized to contract with commercial service
> providers to perform technical and service functions.
> Either new or existing organizations should be
> eligible to apply to become the SO.
> 
> Applicants for the SO should propose policies and
> practices supportive of non-commercial participants in
> the ICANN process.
> 
> The DNSO requires SO applicants to propose governance
> structures that provide current .org registrants with
> the opportunity to directly participate in the
> selection of officers and/or policy-making council
> members.
> 
> Selection criteria for a Sponsoring Organization (SO):
> 
> · Can the SO demonstrate support from both a)
> existing .org registrants and b) a broad spectrum of
> non-commercial organizations and groups? Is the support
> internationally distributed to a sufficient degree? In
> assessing support, the evaluation must include
> organizational and individual endorsements as well as
> SO Board selections.
> 
> · Is the SO a stable and responsible non-profit organization?
> 
> · Do the SO's proposed registration policies maintain
> unrestricted eligibility for end users, as required by
> the DNSO policy document?
> 
> · Does the proposal contain a clear, workable and
> forward-looking vision of the targeted community
> of .org registrants? Is the definition broad and
> inclusive, as required by the DNSO policy?
> 
> · Will the marketing and branding practices proposed
> reach the targeted community and encourage registrars
> not to promote duplicative and defensive registrations?
> 
> · Does the SO have established relationships with
> providers of technical-operational services, and are
> those providers capable of supporting the required
> scale of operations, accounting for the possibility of
> growth?
> 
> · If the SO does not have established relationships
> with providers, has it prepared a set of criteria for
> selecting them that is sufficiently well thought out
> and detailed to be confident of successful
> implementation?
> 
> 5. The Registry Operator
> Any entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization
> to operate the .org registry must function efficiently
> and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality
> of service for all .org users worldwide, including a
> commitment to making registration, assistance and
> other services available in different time zones and
> different languages. The price of registration
> proposed by the new entity should be as low as
> feasible consistent with the maintenance of good
> quality service.
> 
> 6. ICANN Policies
> TLD administration must adhere to policies defined
> through ICANN processes, such as policies regarding
> registrar accreditation, shared registry access,
> dispute resolution, and access to registration contact
> data. The new entity must not alter the technical
> protocols it uses in ways that would impair the
> ability of accredited registrars to sell names to end
> users.
> 
> 7. Follow Up
> ICANN should provide an opportunity for the Names Council
>  to review the request for proposals
> (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public
> dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed
> in consultation with the Names Council. There should be only one
> review cycle.
> 
> The DNSO opposes the use of application
> fees as a method of arbitrarily limiting the number
> of applications or of financing ICANN.

-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany@sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org