Re: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Marilyn:

> I believe that grandfathered names would have to be transferred
> in the event of mergers, takeovers, etc. since the website would
> probably transfer to the new entity.

Quoting Ken:

> Marilyn makes a good point here on the "grandfathered names"
> transfer. This issue has concerns of registrars as well. We need
> to insure that, in the case of transfer on mergers or
> acquisition of the entity who currently owns a "grandfather
> service contract" , provisions be made for continuance of these
> "grandfather rights"
>
> These types of issues are  very important...

There is one further complication that we need to weigh into our
action. If the holder of a grandfathered name is totally free to
transfer it to another entity subsequent to the effective date for
newORG, there will be two marketplaces for .org names; one bound by
the constraints that may be placed on new registrations, and the
other free from them. The value of attractive names on the latter
might inflate in a manner that we wouldn't necessarily want to
encourage.

I realize that this argument can be used equally well to support the
contentions that no control is feasible, and that establishing
purposeful control mechanisms is all the more important. (Please
note that I am not stating any preference other than the hope that
this discussion leads to a useful conclusion.)

> But how and when do you start getting "specific" without getting
> "too specific" in the RFP process

Indeed!  Perhaps we can, nonetheless, state a few essential
principles that we all agree should be carried forward in the
process. Whether or not any policy control for newORG is meaningful
or even possible, remains a pivotal issue, however each constituency
might list its priorities. One advantage of there being no such
control would be that we at least wouldn't need to argue either
about where it should be anchored or how it should be labelled :-)

/Cary