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

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

Marc wrote:
[...]
> > 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?

The (2) points into "the Global Internet Community".
Whatever restrictions we may start to devise, it will end up as GIC.
Some time ago I named "dot Org" the fourth dimension of our Internet 
world - each and every Internaute may need to take a domain name there.
We have icann.org, dnso.org, centr.org, wwtld.org, schneiders.org ... 
each and every formal or informal group of any type of users
discussing together set an dot Org domain name.

> > 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. 

I do not know. I doubt.
Is Verisign providing any stats on revoked domain names for lack of 
correct information ? Or any Registrar ? 
Looking only on technical aspects - in March 2000, Men and mice, 
http://www.menandmice.com/dnsplace/healthsurvey.html
reported about 72.5 percent of incorrect zones under dot Com (dot Fr 
had the best score with slightly less than 30 percent ... and I know 
the time we spent on that) - who cares about quality ?

[...] 
I appreciate all your comments to my message.


Elisabeth