Re: [ga] CDT Letter on .org

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

Todd and all assembly members,

  I would have to agree with Todd in his bet here.  However I not any
of our members see this as being all that concerning as .ORG has always
been in practice a "Open TLD"...  Remember .ORG originally meant or
stood for "Organizations".  That being the case, and the fact that
"Organizations" come in all types, NGO and non-NGO alike...

todd glassey wrote:

> 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

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders 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: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
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