Re: [nc-org] "Sponsored-unrestricted"

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, at 14:09 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

Just two questions for now for clarification:

> Although the new administrator would define specific 
> types of registrants who constitute the target 
> community for ORG, it would not do anything to evict 
> existing registrants who don't conform to that 
> definition, nor would it impose ex ante restrictions 
> on people or organizations attempting to establish new 
> registrations. 

Ex ante - ex post... What sort of ex post restrictions are you
thinking of? Further on you mention a dispute policy See below).
Should we not make clear that we do not want that either? Or anything
for that matter? Being vague about it, by introducing this distinction
and leaving one of the two open, gives those who feel like it an
opportunity to introduce ex post procedures at a later stage. 

> An ORG run by a wholly commercial entity with no 
> connections to or representation from the 
> noncommercial domain name holders might try to make 
> ORG into a clone of COM, or encourage registrations 
> that undermined the character of the TLD in ways 
> unsatisfactory to the registrants using it. 

This is why we need to come up and put in our report a clear idea
of how the users/registrants (not-for-profits, individuals) are going
to be represented. Who is going to (s)elect them? And how?

> On the 
> other hand, an ORG that tried to restrict 
> registrations, either through ex ante review of 
> applications, or through an ex post dispute mechanism, 
...
-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG