DNSO Archives: [council]

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.

[council]

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