RE: First draft of an ORG policy - please comment

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

Guillermo:
Can you clarify for me the reasons why you want ORG to be restricted
and what public groups support such a restriction?

I am pretty sure that there is a pretty broad consensus against
restricting ORG. 

There are several reasons for this:
1. There is no simple, clear, globally applicable definition of 
what is a "non-profit" or "non-commercial" organization

2. The status of organizations change. An organization
that starts as a non-profit may become commercial, and 
should not have to change its identity.

3. Non-profits and non-commercial organizations engage in
commercial activity - for example, the World Wildlife Federation
sells T-shirts and other merchandise with its logo.  

4. There is tremendous value in allowing organizations the
flexibility to register where they choose. 

>>> "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl> 08/09/01 03:05PM >>>
Dear Milton,

I am attaching a few comments to the proposed draft. 

Best regards

Guillermo

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu] 
Enviado el: Viernes, 03 de Agosto de 2001 23:38
Para: gcarey@carey.cl; grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz; ck@nrm.se 
CC: elisabeth.porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr; kstubbs@dninet.net 
Asunto: First draft of an ORG policy - please comment


ORG Task Force members:

During the past week I conferred with representatives
of the Noncommercial community and with members
of the ISP, Business-Commercial, and Intellectual
Property constituencies in Washington DC. Of course,
that is just a start.

In the statement below, I have tried to define 
a set of policy prescriptions that takes account
of the various concerns I heard and the areas of
agreement I discerned. 

Please let me know what you think of it. Perhaps
we can have something ready by the Names Council
teleconference on August 16.

========


NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE

Statement of Policy (v 1.0, August 3, 2001)

1. Administration of ORG should be delegated to a new, 
non-profit entity with broad, international support 
and participation from non-commercial organizations
inside and outside of the ICANN process. The new 
registry should develop policies and practices 
supportive of noncommercial constituencies. It should 
be authorized to contract with commercial service 
providers to perform technical and service functions.

2. The new ORG registry must function efficiently and 
reliably. The entity chosen by ICANN must show its 
commitment to a high quality of service for all .ORG 
users worldwide, including a commitment to making 
registration, assistance and other services available 
in different time zones and different languages.

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. 

4. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the 
future development of the name space, .ORG's history 
of accessiility and openness, combined with the 
difficulties of establishing an easily enforcable, 
globally acceptable definition of "non commercial," 
make prior restrictions on registration a bad idea 
for .ORG in the future. .ORG should continue as an 
unrestricted TLD.

5. .ORG's original status as a place for registrants 
who "don't fit anywhere else" must be retained. 
While .ORG must remain a TLD for traditional 
noncommercial organizations and non-profits, it must 
also be recognized as a TLD that supports individuals, 
households, unincorporated organizations, business 
partnerships with non-profits, and other social 
initiatives.

6. While .ORG should remain an unrestricted TLD, the 
new delegee should identify ways to differentiate and 
strengthen the special identity of ORG, such as 
marketing and promotion strategies targeting 
noncommercial uses and users, and by not encouraging 
defensive or duplicative registrations.

7. .ORG's administration must be consistent with 
policies defined through ICANN processes, such as 
policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared 
registry access, dispute resolution, and access to 
registration contact data. Consistency does not mean 
total uniformity, however; the new registry's mandate 
to support non-commercial interests should permit it 
latitude to develop special policies and practices 
suited to those interests so long as they do not
undermine critical policy objectives.

8. The DNSO Task Force developing ORG policy should 
work directly with the ICANN staff in drafting a 
Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications for
the delegation, and play a direct and co-equal role 
with ICANN staff in the selection of the new registry 
operator.