[council] Re: [nc-org] Registrars and restrictions on org marketing

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> If we go the sponsored route, any restrictions on registration
> would have to come from a CEDRP.  A dispute policy that can
> throw out offending registrations is in my opinion the only
> feasible way to enforce restrictions on a legacy domain.

There would have to be some clearly stated basis for the resolution
of such disputes. Why couldn't that be applied directly at the
point of registration?

> Your statement that a CEDRP is intended to be used to slap the
> wrist of sponsors who don't adequately enforce restrictions may
> be valid in the traditional sponsored model, but obviously there
> is flexibility here.

What is the traditional sponsored model?  The first time the literal
notion of the CEDRP appeared was in the draft sponsorship agreement
for .museum, which was also the first of the sponsored TLDs. This is
hardly ancient history and, in fact, the details of CEDRP
implementation remain to be established.

Since I've been blamed for introducing terminology that was
subsequently criticized into this TF's deliberations, I may as
well fess up right now about being the one who first mentioned the
CEDRP here. If I recall correctly the general response was, "what
the *%#!* is a CEDRP?"  Since nothing has happened in the interim to
define the term further, how has it acquired the aspects that are
now being ascribed to it?  Not that I feel the notion to be
inappropriate to newORG, but I'm not sure I understand how and to
what the requisite flexibility is to be applied.

/Cary