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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, at 17:09 [=GMT+0200], Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:

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

1. There are always entities that escape the definitions, esp. when
called into life like new ORG.
2. The relevant community is the users of ORG?

> 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)

If this is about false names or addresses, isn't that already true? I
think it is. 

[...]
> 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.

This may be a very serious option, I agree, esp. since Verisign will,
IIRC, do the technical operation for free for another year. That
should suffice to set up ORG's own whois and nameserver sets. Also it
may be possible to follow in the steps of many (larger) ccTLDs and
have a DNS with 'friends' as secondaries. (See e.g. dns for DE and
FR.) This is, however, something we do not have to think about, I
guess, in any concrete way.

> 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 ?

This is a very good point! Most ICANN accredited registrars will leave
their websites as they are, and continue to try to sell *all* TLD's to
new registrants. Should new ORG use a separate channel? This is of
course hardly possible, given that all registrations are in the whois
of all these 100 plus ICANN registrars. The question needs to be
thought about in any case.
A possible road towards a solution here, is to change pricing
structure of ORG names, so that it is not interesting to also sell an
ORG to a COM registrant.

Marc

> 
> 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)

[...]