RE: [nc-org] Revised Statement of Policy

[Grant Forsyth <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>]

Milton and fellow TFs
Thank you for updating the DRAFT TF position. (I am not sure if I have
forwarded this to you before, but I have lost emails over the last day so
want to ensure that this gets through - sorry if it is a duplicate - I have
just been advised to resend this again!).
1. I do think we should put this - or some further interaction - out for
general NC input AFTER the F2F discussion.
2. Other than Cary and myself I have not seen much other input on content
and I think Milton that you are right that this needs to be take as assent.
3. I hope to follow up my previous posting of the DRAFT BC input with a
final BC input soon following further internal consultation in the BC -
hopefully it will reflect a FINAL BC position, but might have just be a
revised DRAFT.

As to specific comments on the position, these are noted in [BC: brackets]
and try to reflect the draft BC position to date - as best I can determine
it.
It has been helpful to the BC consultation process to have participated in
these discussions and you will note a shift in position on the matter of a
"restricted" registry.

Hopefully getting some further feedback early is useful and I look forward
to the input of the others on the TF.
Regards

Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
AUCKLAND
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007


-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2001 7:47 a.m.
To: nc-org@dnso.org
Subject: [nc-org] Revised Statement of Policy


Fellow TF members:
Here is a revision of the principles based on 
your comments. Please note that I fully recognize
that Points 4 and 5 remain disputed by the IP
constituency, and by some members of the B&C
constituency. However, points 1-3 and 6-8 seem to be
basically accepted; correct me if that perception is wrong.

My idea is that we put these pirinciples
out for public comment immediately after the 
Montevideo meeting. After reviewing that comment
we should be prepared to make the changes and
compromises that can lead to consensus.

The public comment material will separate the disputed 
points from the undisputed ones. I will develop a set of 
questions designed to elicit community input that will provide 
guidance. I will have that text prepared in time for circulation 
among us and the NC in a few days. I encourage your suggestions.

===================

NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE

Statement of Policy (v 2.0, August 29, 2001)
[BC: Milton, I think a statement as follows would be useful.
The following statement of policy addresses the divestment of the existing
ORG from the control of Verisign to a new entity.  It does NOT seek to 
provide policy for the CREATION of a NEW domain.]

1. Administration of ORG should be delegated to a new, 
non-profit entity with 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 and
registrants. 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 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 legacy 
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.
[BC: Don't understand what "prior restrictions" means - suggest drop "prior"

5. .ORG's original status as a place for miscellaneous 
registrants 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 
individual organizers, ideas, households, unincorporated 
organizations, business partnerships with non-profits, and 
other social initiatives.
[BC: This whole para can be dropped. It is unnecessary to talk about 
any view as to its current status - having noted that all who are currently
registered may remain, and being unrestricted anyone else may join - why 
be concerned to try and characterise what some might choose to 
hold a different view on? A TLD does not need to "support" anyone, merely be

open to and or positioned as ...

6. 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.
[BC: If by "special identify" you mean "non-commercial, organisation" then
fine.
If you are going to do this then again, 5. can go.
Not quite sure what you mean by "not encouraging defensive...". If you mean
that 
the registry will not actively try to upsell the registrant additional
registrations in other 
registries (as I understand is the case when registering in COM) then fine.
If, however, the
"encouragement" extends to any sort of penalty or differential charging for
a registrant who 
also currently holds a registration of a similar or same name in another
registry, then
NO we wouldn't support such "encouragement".]

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 ICANN's policy objectives.
[BC: Can't see why you would want to "soften" adherence to ICANN policy. 
What "special" policies? We would expect a new ORG registry to fully 
support and comply with ALL ICANN policies and procedures without any
variations.]

8. The Chair of 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 should participate in ICANN Board 
discussions surrounding the selection of the new registry 
operator.
[BC: There should be a clear demarcation between policy and implementation
and 
the NC or its TFs should NOT get embroiled in implementation - leave that to
the
ICANN staff.
I think it may be desirable for draft selection criteria/RFP to be fed back
to the
whole TF for review given that we have, for once, started this policy
development
process with enough lead time. Selection though should be left to the
Board.]