[council] Cc: Ken Stubbs <kstubbs@corenic.org>, Marilyn Cade <mcade@lga.att.com>, Louis Touton <touton@icann.org>, lynn@icann.org

[Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com>]

Folks,

(Not sure what the protocol is for sending this sort of note, so I am
sending it to individuals as well as the council address.)

Milton has occasionally been feeding the NCDNHC constituency mailing list
with a draft of the recommendation under consideration.  Concerns
being raised with the draft are getting no substantive response. 

There are a number of us raising those concerns (Any claim that the
ncdnhc has consensus about any of the current proposal is quite simply
baseless.)

In order to make sure that some of these concerns get more broad airing,
I am including a recent posting that went into considerable
detail:


(my comments are indented.)

> At 06:16 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Milton
> Mueller wrote:
> The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
> gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> divestiture.
>
> Such a basic, broad and frankly disruptive statement requires
> substantiation. 
>
> None is provided.
>
>
> The manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary
> consideration, 
>
> Having been under the belief that my language skills in American English
> were at least competent, I am nonetheless unable to figure out what the
> heck you mean by this statement, in or out of context.
>
>
> 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
>
> As Kent noted, the constituency has been unable to provide adequate
> guidance on determining what organizations are or are not qualified.
>
> Therefore, handing them such a requirement is counter-productive. If
> followed, the requirement will cause delays and increased cost. If
> ignored, it lessens the utility of the NCC submission.
>
>
> 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized
> non-profit entities
>
> "Recognized" by whom? And why is a new (specially-formed)
> organization not acceptable? 
>
> For example, an application by the Red Cross is far less credible than
> one from a new organization headed by Vint Cerf, given the difference in
> their experience doing Internet operations.
>
>
> The bylaws should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and
> participatory 
> process by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and
> revised
>
> Oh good. Let's re-create ICANN. 
>
> That is certain to keep .org costs down and service responsive.
>
>
> 1d. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit
> organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board
> should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in demonstrated
> financial resources from applicants.
>
> A large number of applicants is not a goal. Goals are to have a) relevant
> skills and b) adequate financing. 
>
> Hence a financial rules should pertain to operational adequacy, not to
> "ease of application". 
>
> Also, absent a detailed explanation of why anyone would think that
> US$200K is sufficient, my own sense is that it is frankly off by at least
> an order of magnitude.
>
>
> 2a. Definition of the .org community. Each applicant organization 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. 
>
> Why? For any of the above, why?
>
>
> 2b. No eligibility requirements
> Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility requirements.
> With a definition of the served community and appropriate marketing
> practices in place, the organization and the registrars should rely
> entirely on end-user choice to determine who registers in .org.
>
> There has been no NCC consensus established on this important point.
> Rather, there HAS been quite a bit of discussion and disagreement
> demonstrated.
>
>
> Specifically, applicants:
> * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to
> its target community.
>
> What they "propose" is not the issue. They simply must not
> evict existing registrants.
>
>
> Current registrants must not have their registrations cancelled nor
> should they be denied the opportunity to renew their names or transfer
> them to others.
>
> Ever? What you probably mean is that there must be no special policies
> that have the effect of denying these things for existing
> registrants.
>
>
> 2c. Surplus funds  Applicants should specify how they plan to
> disburse any surplus funds. 
>
> A not-for-profit does not operate in a manner that accrues significant
> surplus funds. And jurisdictions for non-profit corporations usually have
> significant rules about his. 
>
> So we should avoid trying to replicate policies that are already handled
> by the legal and tax systems of states.
>
>
> 2e. Definition of marketing practices  Differentiation of the domain
> is a key policy objective in the transition,
>
> Really? Why? And where is the constituency consensus on this major
> point?
>
>
> 4. The Registry Operator  Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to
> operate the .org registry must 
>
> This document should not state requirements on the operator. Stating
> basic service goals for the Registry is one thing. Stating details about
> or for the operator is quite another. 
>
> And uttering requirements about protocols is just plain silly, especially
> when the utterance ignores relevant factors. Please leave the technical
> work to people who do technical work.

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464