Re: [ga] CDT Letter on .org

["todd glassey" <todd.glassey@worldnet.att.net>]

As a side comment, I am willing to bet that more than 50% of the .org's
registered and actively in use are support organizations of commercial
entities or they are standards and operations consortiums that have a
bottom-line impact on their peer .com/.net or others. This invalidates the
concept that .org is the "NPO's Only" TLD...

Todd


----- Original Message -----
From: "Rob Courtney" <rob@cdt.org>
To: <ga@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2002 3:32 PM
Subject: [ga] CDT Letter on .org


> Members of the General Assembly,
>
> CDT has just sent an open letter to the ICANN Board regarding the
> .org redelegation process. I'm attaching it here for your review;
> comments and responses are very welcome!
>
> Best,
>
> Rob Courtney
>
> * * *
>
> Vint Cerf
> Chairman
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
> Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601
>
>
> August 30, 2002
>
>
> Dear Dr. Cerf,
>
> As one of the Internet's most successful domains, .org's redelegation
> will implicate millions of registrants and affect the core of the
> Internet's non-commercial community. We commend the hard work done by
> many to date, and we view the recently-published staff report as a
> useful document for the Board's consideration. We therefore offer
> this open letter to you and the Board, urging that the broad
> interests of the non-commercial community be kept in mind as the
> staff report is finalized and the redelegation decision is taken.
>
> *Finding the Right Priorities in .org Bidder Evalution*
>
> The .org domain has always benefited from its unique position as a
> home for non-commercial activity amid the Internet's many commercial
> enterprises. CDT appreciates the Board's request to the
> Non-Commercial Constituency for a report evaluating the eleven
> registry applicants on certain criteria - largely touching on the
> .org registry's relationship with the non-commercial community  - and
> note that report's excellent evaluation of the applicants on those
> criteria.
>
> However, the final impact of the .org redelegation on the
> non-commercial Internet community will extend from all aspects of the
> registry's operation, not just its administrative structure or
> advisory practices. As many in the ICANN community know, technical
> capability, financial stability, and competency in customer service
> are critical considerations. For many, perhaps most, non-commercial
> domain name holders, these concerns come first and foremost. As such,
> we wish to underscore the following metrics and priorities for the
> evaluation of .org applicants:
>
> * The .org registry must exist on a strong technical
> foundation. Redelegation cannot be considered a success if names do
> not resolve quickly, accurately, and reliably. Any other benefits
> that non-commercial organizations would receive from the new registry
> would have little value if this basic technical mission is not
> fulfilled. Registry applications should offer ample evidence of their
> technical plans' robustness, scalability, adaptability, and, above
> all, workability.
>
> * The .org registry operator should have a workable financial
> model. The eleven applications before ICANN encompass a wide variety
> of approaches to funding the registry's operation. Even a cursory
> review of the domain names market will reveal that operating a major
> registry is a non-trivial undertaking; it is unlikely that every one
> of the eleven proposed approaches will succeed. A bankrupt registry
> operator will not be able to fulfill the registry's basic technical
> requirements, and the non-commercial community should make
> identification of workable financial models a high priority. The new
> registry will have a very short start-up time, and must be able to
> demonstrate its ability to be financially and technically stable on
> January 1, 2003. Several bidders have also expressed their intention
> to apply for the $5 million endowment offered by VeriSign to a
> non-profit registry operator. It is not yet clear whether all those
> bidders will qualify for the endowment, nor when or how the money
> will be paid out. Registry applicants' positions would be enhanced by
> publishing their plans in the event that the money is not immediately
> forthcoming.
>
> * The .org registry requires rapid, effective customer
> support. Although the .org registry operator will not be involved in
> the retail sale of domain names, high-quality support for .org
> registrars will bring benefits to the .org registrant community as
> well. The ability of .org registrants to have their problems resolved
> and maintenance performed quickly and effectively would be a major
> benefit for the non-commercial Internet community.
>
> * The .org registry operator's activities at ICANN should
> reflect its registrants' unique interests. As on of the world's five
> largest registries, .org constitutes a major slice of the
> international domain name community. Its operator will have
> significant influence in the gTLD Constituency (and any successor
> body) and in ICANN as a whole. The direction in which that authority
> is exercised are of great interest to registrants in .org. Registry
> applicants' plans for supporting registrants' interests at ICANN are
> a key aspect of their applications.
>
> * When the registry operator addresses questions of registry
> policy, consultation with the registrant community should be a
> priority. Historically, the ICANN Board has assumed authority over
> questions of gTLD policy. Where the registry operator has sole
> discretion over a policy decision affecting registrants, however, it
> should be prepared to make such a decision only after substantial
> consultation with the registrant community. Structures of outreach,
> input, and advice should be outlined ahead of time.
>
> * Applicants' creativity in posing new ways to support and
> expand the non-commercial community's use of .org should be
> recognized. The eleven applications have shown an impressive
> diversity of proposals for using .org to bring new benefits to the
> Internet's non-commercial community, providing a valuable indicator
> of the registry's potential. Such creativity should be acknowledged
> both by the Board and the community, and any ideas that cannot be
> implemented in the new .org should certainly be remembered for the
> future.
>
> Finally, as the Board approaches its decision on the .org
> redelegation, it is of paramount importance that it continues to
> employ open, transparent, and objective decision-making processes.
> Such a key decision should not be tarnished by appearances of
> arbitrariness, and a strong commitment to openness can prevent such
> misconceptions.
>
> CDT hopes the Board and the entire ICANN community will keep these
> priorities in mind as they continue their review of the staff report
> and the eleven applications. It is our continued belief that only
> applications achieving excellence in all of these areas would
> adequately serve the non-commercial Internet community.
>
> We look forward to the Board's progress on this important issue.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> Alan Davidson
> Associate Director
> Center for Democracy & Technology
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
>
> cc: ICANN Board of Directors
> --
>
> Rob Courtney
> Policy Analyst
> Center for Democracy & Technology
> 1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
> Washington, DC 20006
> 202 637 9800
> fax 202 637 0968
> rob@cdt.org
> http://www.cdt.org/
>
>   --
>
> Add your voice to the Internet policy debate!
>     JOIN THE CDT ACTIVIST NETWORK!
>       http://www.cdt.org/join/
> --
> 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