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

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Cary:
I interpret your comments below as ambiguous. 
You express support for the concept of keeping ORG open.
This is good - it conforms to the majority of the rest of
the non-commercial community's wishes.

And yet, you raise the issue of whether a museum attempting
to register in ORG would be "referred to [the] .museum [registry]"

This is a rather astounding concept, for a variety of
reasons. First, it assumes that registration within ORG,
which is now fully automated and likely to remain so, 
would suddenly become completely manual, and reviewed
by someone capable of making judgments about the
identity or status of organizations. I just don't think that 
is feasible in a registry with several millions of customers.

Second, it seems to assume that registries, rather than end 
users themselves, are the best judge of where end users 
should register. While you back away from that implication,
the simple fact is that if a TLD such as .museum cannot
attract its intended constituency, then yes, the domain 
has little value. 

But that has nothing at all to do with the appropriate
policies for .ORG. Policy for the ORG domain should 
not be warped in order to ensure that other domains
succeed.

Could you clarify if this is what you meant?

>>> ck@nrm.se 08/04/01 02:34AM >>>
> 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