Re: Comment please: .ORG task force (Re: [ga] .ORG DivestitureTaskForce v. 5.2)

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

thank you very much for this update,
Please enlighten us on enforcement procedures.

Theory is all well and good but how do we enforce?

Again thank you for your hard work on this project.

Eric


Marc Schneiders wrote:

> [Jeff was trying to outwit me by posting this text :-)]
>
> As it was unclear (and still is) whether this is the final version, but
> since it was posted for comment to the NCDNHC list not long ago, I think I
> should present it to you all in the GA now, as your representative in the
> task force that wrote the draft.  Yesterday night the task force had a
> teleconference, which proved to be quite productive in solving remaining
> issues, but not everything is fully final now (quite apart from the need
> of adoption of the text by the Names Council etc.).
>
> The most important issues for me, as your representative, which I put in
> my statement accepting to be on this task force, were (and still) are:
>
> * no domains already registered cancelled ('grandfathering');
> * a positive approach to diversify TLDs, meaning that in some way ORG
> should be mainly or basically a non-commercial (individual, community
> etc.) TLD, not a duplicate of COM;
> * a policy for ORG that really works (checking all registrations is really
> impossible and/or too expensive)
> * registrants' influence (preferably via elections, if possible) on the
> management
>
> I think all of these points are quite well represented in the text. I am
> happy with it, even if it is a compromise.
>
> If any on the GA list has comments, please do not hesitate! I will collect
> ideas etc. and they may be added to the report.
>
> Thanks,
>
> --
> Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
> > NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> > > v 5.2 (January 4, 2002)
> > >
> > > The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide
> > > community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in
> > > noncommercial communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org
> > > administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that
> > has
> > > widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.
> > >
> > > The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in
> > the
> > > gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> > > divestiture. Some clear statement of administrative and marketing
> > > practices will be necessary but this must not result in an exclusive
> > > boundary being set around the community of eligible registrants. The
> > > manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary
> > > consideration, but the framework should include all the points below.
> > >
> > > 1. Characteristics of the Organization
> > >
> > > 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> > > organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
> > > recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views
> > about
> > > policy and management, and that no single organization can fully
> > > encompass the diversity of global civil society. Nevertheless,
> > applicant
> > > organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation
> > > from a significant number of international noncommercial .org
> > registrants.
> > > The organization's policies and practices should strive to be
> > responsive to
> > >
> > > and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user community, and
> > reflect
> > > as much of its diversity as possible.
> > >
> > > 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized
> > non-
> > > profit entities (including corporations, associations, partnerships or
> >
> > > cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal jurisdiction in
> > which
> > > the organization is established). Subcontracting of operational
> > functions
> > > to
> > > for-profit providers is permitted.
> > >
> > > 1c. Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD
> > that
> > > provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
> > participate
> > > in
> > > the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members. The
> > bylaws
> > > should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and participatory
> > > process by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and
> > > revised in a manner which reflects the interests of .org domain name
> > > holders and is consistent with the terms of its registry agreement
> > with
> > > ICANN.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than
> > > simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include
> > individuals
> > > and
> > > groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and information
> > > exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational and political
> > organizations,
> > >
> > > and business partnerships with non-profits and community groups for
> > > social initiatives.
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > Specifically, applicants:
> > > * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to
> > its
> > > target community. Current registrants must not have their
> > registrations
> > > cancelled nor should 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, or propose any new dispute
> >
> > > initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain
> > > delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
> > >
> > > 2c. Surplus funds
> > > Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.
> >
> > > Use of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org
> > registry
> > > operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is
> >
> > > adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some
> > > relationship to Internet administration and policy. For example,
> > applicants
> > >
> > > are encouraged to propose methods of supporting and assisting non-
> > > commercial participants in the ICANN process. Uses intended only to
> > > subsidize other activities of the organization or its subsidiaries,
> > > activities
> > > that are not subject to oversight and management by the .org
> > > governance arrangements, should not be considered.
> > >
> > > 2d. Registrars
> > > All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names
> > in
> > > .org.
> > > However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the
> > > relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage
> > > differentiation of the domain.
> > >
> > > 2e. Definition of marketing practices
> > > Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the
> > transition,
> > > and
> > > new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that
> > objective.
> > > Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and practices
> > > designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract
> > registrations
> > > from the defined community, and minimize defensive and duplicative
> > > registrations.
> > >
> > > 3. The Verisign endowment
> > >
> > > Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5
> > > million
> > > endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they propose
> >
> > > to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.
> > >
> > > 4. The Registry Operator
> > >
> > > Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee 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. Protocols used by the new registry should
> > minimize
> > > transitional expenses for registrars.
> > >
> > > 5. ICANN Policies
> > >
> > > The .org administration must adhere to policies defined through ICANN
> > > processes, such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared
> > > registry access, the uniform dispute resolution policy, and access to
> > > registration contact data via WHOIS.
> > >
> > > 6. Follow up
> > >
> > > ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit
> > organizations
> > > to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a
> > deadline
> > >
> > > no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and
> > > agreement process may be completed well in advance of the 31 December
> > > expiration of the current agreement with Verisign.
> > >
> > > ICANN will 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
> > > Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application fees
> > should
> > > be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging
> > > frivolous applications.
> > >
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
> > Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> >
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html