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

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

Ken:
The concept of a non-profit entity has been
set out in three different iterations of the
proposed policy, and everyone has agreed with it.

Both the IPCC and te B&C constituencies, as 
well as the NCDNHC, have explicitly expressed
support for it. The gTLD representative has
commented on many things, but has never objected
to it. 

I think that issue is not on the table any more.

>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 09/15/01 15:13 PM >>>
the concept is basically acceptable with the exception that there appears to
be an assumption in milton's recap that the TLD registry would not be
managed by a commercial entity.. Management of this TLD by a for-profit or
not-for-profit entity needs much further conbsideration.

a methodology for developing criteria for evaluating management proposals
needs to be developed
and a method for selecting the parties to manage the evaluation process
needs to be constructed.

i am also assuming that at this point in time references to non-commercial
domain holders do not necessarily refer to definitions currently used for
defining this constituancy.. these definitions need to be re-clarified

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 2:09 PM
Subject: [nc-org] "Sponsored-unrestricted"


> TF members:
>
> One of the key points of agreement that emerged from
> the f2f meeting in Montevideo was that ORG could be
> concieved as a "sponsored, but unrestricted" domain.
> This meant that the sponsoring organization that
> administers the new ORG should develop a definition of
> the relevant community for which ORG domain names are intended.
>
> Although the new administrator would define specific
> type 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. Its policy will be to develop marketing
> and branding practices oriented toward the target
> community, and rely on end-user self-selection, i.e.
> consumer choice, to determine the characteristics of
> the registrations.
>
> I want to make sure that everyone on the TF
> understands this unusual construct (sponsored but
> unrestricted) and is prepared to accept it, articulate
> the rationale behind it, and defend it throughout the
> rest of the process.
>
> ICANN's web site defines a "sponsored" TLD as "a
> specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the
> narrower community that is most affected by the TLD.
> The sponsor thus carries out delegated policy-
> formulation responsibilities over many matters
> concerning the TLD." Note that sponsored TLDs are
> conceived as "narrower" than unsponsored TLDs, which
> ICANN describes as "relatively large." In fact, ORG is
> quite a large TLD, and will probably be larger than
> the new unsponsored TLDs for some time. It is likely
> to remain "relatively large", and indeed may grow
> relative to others.
>
> Such an approach, I believe, provides the optimal
> trade-off between maintaining a distictive character
> for ORG and keeping the registration process
> affordable, easy to administer, and responsive to
> various end-user demands that may be difficult to
> classify.
>
> 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. On the
> other hand, an ORG that tried to restrict
> registrations, either hrough ex ante review of
> applications, or through an ex post dispute mechanism,
> would be far more costly, less stable, and would
> diminish end user choice. Moreover, given the very
> mixed nature of current registrations in ORG, there is
> limited value in attempting to impose "purifying"
> measures unless one is also prepared to evict large
> numbers of current registrants, and there seems to be
> no support for this.
>
> Are we together on this?
>
>