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

[Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se>]

M = Milton (NCC)
G = Grant (BC)

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

G> Don't agree - we believe ORG should be a restricted
G> registry with a defined charter, publication of all
G> registrations, open process for the international
G> community to challenge registrations and transparent
G> dispute resolution process.

The creation of new-ORG or any other TLD requires some document that
states its purpose, perimeter, parameters, etc. It is entirely
possible for such a document to require the maintenance of
transparency in the sense described by Grant, without in any way
applying restrictions on the entities that would be entitled to
register in the domain.

G> Dot org should be chartered and marketed as a space for
G> organisations. The charter should include a definition of
G> organisation that is wide to include commercial and
G> non-commercial while giving a sense of members not
G> shareholders.

I have no preconceived notion about the utility of several nominally
distinct TLDs being operated on the same policy basis. If nothing
else, doing so provides obvious means for multiplying the size of
available subdomain name space. The creation of .info, for example,
gives everyone who missed their preferred SLD designation elsewhere
to have a new chance at getting it. With a slightly narrower focus,
"Nothing personal, just business", .biz does the same thing.

If new-ORG is to be available to commercial and non-commercial
entities, it will provide yet another variation on the same theme.
I am not certain that the registrant community would ascribe
decisive significance to distinctions made between their status as
members or shareholders in the domain.

The rfc920-ORG was restricted for use by entities that did not meet
the "second level requirements" of the other three-letter domains
created together with it. If you were not qualified for EDU, COM or
MIL, you would use ORG. The second-level qualifying attributes were,
however, not stated in the RFC. Instead, they were left to the
discretion of the agency that processed requests for registration in
these domains. This generated a series of problems that ultimately
led to our present action.

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

G> Don't agree - while some might characterise ORG as a
G> catch all for miss-fits, that should not be a feature
G> of it continuance. There are more registries available
G> now particularly in the ccTLDs which have their own
G> "catch alls".  If a gTLD catch all is required, then
G> create one.]

So -- the heart of the matter?

Do we wish to clarify and reintroduce the intent of RFC920, this
time with new-ORG explicitly and exclusively for noncommercial
organizations, rather than as a default trap for them?

or

Do we wish to establish new-ORG as a domain without registration
restrictions but differing from other similarly unrestricted domains
in regard to its organizational basis?

Before contributing my own responses to these questions, I'd like to
be sure that other TF members also feel this to be high on the list
of key issues. If so, proponents for both approaches have already
revealed themselves to be among our number.

/Cary