Re: [ga] Supplemental report from the GA-rep on the ORG TF report

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Marc and all assembly members,

  Thank you Marc for you hard work and this short report.
I am sure our members as well as some GA members will
have comments and suggestions in it's regard.  Well done!  >;)

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Based on the comments I received, I wrote a short supplemental report
> about a few remaining issues in the final report to the Names
> Council. The text is below.
>
> Thanks for your comments and suggestions! And for letting me be part
> of this task force.
>
> --
> Marc@Schneiders.ORG
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> Supplementary report from the GA-rep in the ORG TF
>
> 1. In general the topics that were important in discussions on the
> divestiture of ORG on the GA-list, are dealt with in a satisfactory
> way in the report. Important issues like grandfathering, as well as
> some form of direct influence of the registrants on the management of
> the registry are given ample space in the text.
>
> 2. Concerns remain, however, such as the possibility of a price raise
> in the registration fee for ORG names, as a result of the guidelines
> regarding surplus funds (2c). A better idea would be, to lower prices,
> if 'profit' would be made. Or to subsidize registrations in
> third-world countries. Hopefully applicants will indicate more
> specifically, how they intend to deal with surplus funds, so that they
> cannot be used to finance unrelated activities.
>
> 3. Unfortunately the report does not contain any indication, how the
> operator of new ORG could and should deal with registrars that
> frustrate the marketing policy, which is so important for
> new ORG to succeed in the way the report proposes. Some form of
> de-accreditation for ORG as far as new registrations are concerned,
> if a registrar refuses to implement the marketing strategy of ORG, is
> necessary. E.g., if a registrar insists on trying to sell the ORG
> domain with every COM domain it sells, and refuses to change its
> website, there should be a procedure to 'punish' this registrar. This
> is not difficult to implement and control. Registrars will report each
> other's transgressions to the ORG operator, no doubt.
> It is quite clear, that it is not possible (and not even in any way
> desirable) to take existing registrations away from registrars,
> including the right to renew them. The above is only concerned with
> new registrations.
>
> 4. The UDRP should apply to new ORG in a different manner than to e.g.
> COM, given the different target users of the TLD. Common words or
> acronyms (e.g. 'word' or 'att') should not necessarily be transferred
> to the companies that have a trademark in these names, if there is no
> actual trademark violation.
>
> 5. Some sort of provision that makes it impossible that VeriSign adds
> ORG again to its collection of TLDs is necessary.
>
> Marc Schneiders (Marc@Schneiders.ORG)
> GA-representative in the NC ORG task force
>
> --
> 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

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