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

[Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se>]

Quoting Marc:

> There is one big problem: ORG is now tied to *all* ICANN
> accredited registrars. It would be very hard to change this. So
> we may have to live with the consequences of that. Unlike
> .museum, which will be registered through 5 to 10 of the 100
> plus registrars.

There is nothing in the current sTLD agreement framework that
imposes any limitations on the number of registrars. If they wish,
the SOs may state conditions to which an ICANN accredited registrar
must agree prior to being approved for the sTLD. I would have
thought that this might provide a useful means for ensuring the
propagation of the non-commercial aspects of .org but there is
nothing that requires its implementation.

> This I find dangerous in the case of ORG. If we go by this road,
> we will have no guarentee whatsoever that the interests of the
> registrants are served. Showing that one can do it, is not the
> same as doing it. Being controlled by the people/organizations
> that are involved, is a better safeguard. As described above it
> would not be transparant and bottom-up at all in any real sense.
> It could perhaps *look* that way. Is that what we want?

The sTLD model assumes that the SO is in the service of the target
community. Are you suggesting that there be no SO other than the
collective voice of the registrant base?  If so, it makes little
sense to put newORG forward as an sTLD in the present sense of
the term.

> Indeed. And though time is short, it would be a pity to let this
> challenge pass by.

The representativity of a grass-roots SO could easily enough be
argued. It would still be necessary to have some form of start-up
oversight body before the consensus entity was established. I
somehow doubt that ICANN would be willing to provide that service,
nor would I expect such a suggestion to meet with widespread
approval in the circles most interested in .org's destiny.

/Cary