[nc-org] Re: First draft of an ORG policy - please comment

[Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se>]

> 4. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the future
> development of the name space ... .ORG should continue as an
> unrestricted TLD.

Restricted TLDs are already a fact of life and will be even more so
by the time the new .org policy is ready for implementation.  I
certainly agree about the desirability of .org continuing as an
unrestricted TLD but the draft (and, indeed, the very fact that this
task force exists) suggests that constraints may be placed on this
openess:

> 5. .ORG's original status as a place for registrants who "don't
> fit anywhere else" must be retained.

For every new focused TLD that is created, a nameable segment of the
community that doesn't fit anywhere else will lose that basis for
its entitlement to registration in .org. The only way to offset this
would be to use .org for registrants who simply don't choose to fit
in elsewhere.

Would it be reasonable, say, for a museum wishing to register
in .org to be referred instead to .museum?  If yes, .org will
not be a fully open domain. If no, the value of .museum is eroded.
(Before anybody jumps on me for this, I am not suggesting that
museums be deprived of their right to choice. Obviously though,
if a large portion of the target community of a restricted TLD
opts not to use it, the value of the domain is questionable.)

> 1. Administration of ORG should be delegated to a new,
> non-profit entity

The domain should be entrusted to the organization that is best
capable of maintaining its policies and reliably addressing
the technical issues of it operation. There is no inherent
link between these skills and the notion of non-commerciality.
"Difficulties of establishing an easily enforcable, globally
acceptable definition of "non commercial" might be expected to
manifest themselves here, as well.

> 3. The transition should make it clear at the outset that
> current legal registrants will not have their registrations
> cancelled nor will they be denied the opportunity to renew their
> names.

This is not the sort of thing that needs to be said about a fully
open TLD. I agree with the statement, though, as I see the present
exercise as one of determining the scope of restrictions that will
be placed on the new .org.

/Cary