Re: [nc-org] Version 3.0 of policy statement

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

I found the following in http://www.icann.org/tlds/, under "DRAFTING
OF REGISTRY AND SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS":

"Generally speaking, an "unsponsored" TLD operates under policies
established by the global Internet community directly through the
ICANN process, while a "sponsored" TLD is 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."

The WG-C interim report, published in October 1999
http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/19991023.NCwgc-report.html
uses "chartered" or "sponsored" as synonym.
The above ICANN-homemade definitions distinguish two ways for policy
making through ICANN process:
  1. "unsponsored" gTLD :== charter or policy established by the Global 
     Internet Community directly under ICANN authority
  2. "sponsored" gTLD   :== charter or policy established by a specialized
     interests, which has been recognized by the Global Internet
     Community, and granted a gTLD under ICANN authority

If we follow the above definitions, the dot Org is:
     "unsponsored" gTLD, with a charter established directly
     under ICANN authority
Therefore the relevant community is "the Global Internet Community".

Now, the "charter" may be more or less restrictive.
The minimal "charter" is, IMHO, the following:
  1. obligation on Registrant side to provide a correct information
     and inform registry (or accredited registrar) on each change
     within a short time, in general no more than 2-3 weeks
     (in several ccTLD, the registry have rights to revoke
     a domain name if provided information is not accurate, and upon
     request or upon sampling of "a posteriori" verifications;
     one of them is revoking an average of 300 domain names per months)
  2. obligation on Registry side (or accredited registrar) to keep 
     Registrants information safe, not resell it for marketing or 
     any other benefice
  3. mutual obligation between Registry and Registrants to accept 
     a dispute resolution when conflict arise (it is not only about
     domain name, but also about service 24h/24 and keeping records
     of registration)

With regard to "2. Characteristics of the Entity", I wonder if
the devised structure could be efficient and operational.
Coming from ccTLD world - I do not believe the Registry function may 
be outsourced. I would be preferable to built up a Registry with 
a Board of Directors (elected people), and hire executive directors 
operating under guidance of such Board.
I undertand the key issue with dot Org Registry will be to obligate
the Registrars, when a user is asking for a domain name under dot Org,
to not try to sell him the same name under any other possible TLD.
Does it fit into specific accreditation terms with Registrars to be
developped by dot Org ?

Elisabeth
--

> From owner-nc-org@dnso.org Sun Sep 23 00:49 MET 2001
> Message-Id: <sbacdd0a.035@gwia201.syr.edu>
> Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 18:48:30 -0400
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
> Subject: [nc-org] Version 3.0 of policy statement
> 
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> 
> Statement of Policy (v 3.0, September 23, 2001)
> 
> 
> The ICANN Board is instructed to award the ORG domain 
> only to applicants that conform to the following criteria:
> 
> 1. ORG Should be a Sponsored, Unrestricted Domain
> 
> The new ORG top-level domain should be a sponsored 
> but unrestricted domain.
> 
> 1a. Sponsored.
> The sponsoring organization should develop a 
> definition of the relevant community for which ORG 
> domain names are intended. The new administrator would 
> define the specific types of registrants who 
> constitute the target community for ORG and propose 
> marketing and branding practices oriented toward that 
> community. The marketing practices should not 
> encourage defensive or duplicative registrations.
> 
> Regarding the definition of the relevant community, 
> the DNSO offers this guidance: the definition should 
> include not only traditional noncommercial and non-
> profit organizations, but individuals and groups 
> seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and 
> information exchange, unincorporated cultural, 
> educational and political organizations, and business 
> partnerships with non-profits for social initiatives.
> 
> 1b. Unrestricted
> With a defined community and appropriate marketing
> plan in place, the sponsoring organization and 
> operating registry would rely entirely on end-user 
> choice to determine who registers in ORG.
> 
> Specifically, the new entity:
> * Must not evict existing registrants who don't
>   conform to its target community. The transition must 
>   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.
> * Must not attempt to impose prior restrictions 
>   on people or organizations attempting to make new 
>   registrations
> * Must not adopt a new dispute initiation procedure
>   to take away registrations ex post (other than the 
>   UDRP, which would apply as per #4 below).
> 
> <explanatory commentary>
> 
> 2. Characteristics of the Entity
> 
> Administration of ORG should be delegated to a
> non-profit entity with international support and 
> participation from .ORG registrants and non-commercial 
> organizations inside and outside of the ICANN process. 
> It should be authorized to contract with commercial 
> service providers to perform technical and service 
> functions. Either new or existing organizations should 
> be eligible. 
> 
> Applicants should propose policies and practices 
> supportive of noncommercial participants in the ICANN process. 
> 
> The DNSO encourages applicants to propose governance 
> structures that provide ORG registrants with the 
> opportunity to directly participate in the selection 
> of officers and/or policy-making council members.
> 
> 3. Operational Criteria for Selection
> 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.
>  
> 4. ICANN Policies
> .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. The new entity must not 
> alter the technical protocols it uses in ways that 
> would impair the ability of accredited registrars to 
> sell names to end users.
> 
> 5. Follow Up
> The DNSO Task Force developing ORG policy 
> should review the request for proposals prepared by the
> ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination to 
> ensure that it reflects the DNSO policy. 
> 
>