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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, at 00:06 [=GMT+0200], Cary Karp wrote:

> 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 is true. However, there are already some 2,803,000 (plus some
45,000 IDN) ORG names in existence... These are spread over the 100
plus registrars. This is not a clean slate operation, like .museum.
It will be far more difficult to get existing registrars under a
policy than new ones. 

> > 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?

Let me backfire: Tell me what this SO is, that is equally capable to
voice the registrant base.

> If so, it makes little sense to put newORG forward as an sTLD in
> the present sense of the term.

To tell you the truth, I do not care much, how we call it. ORG is
certainly different from smaller sTLDs like .museum, which have a tiny
potential registrant base. This means that its organization is likely
to have different characteristics. There are, I presume, already
organizations that represent museums worldwide. There is not yet any
organization I know of, that can be said to do the same for ORG
users. Nothing even near to it.

> > 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 agree. This, however, is not difficult. We could come up with 5-10
names. Or with a list of organizations that can designate someone for
the initial board. Or a combination of both. Also, though I very much
favour elections as the basic method to select the board of newORG, it
could also be partly selected by existing bodies in the future. The
problem I see, is determining which organizations. One of the
advantages of elections is that this problem is avoided. And
non-organizational registrants, which are many, then also have a
voice. Elections is a simple, clear and open way to do it.
Additionally, it is not very 'dangerous' in the case of ORG (as
compared with ICANN itself). ICANN can, if the newORG board really
makes a mess of it, always withdraw the delegation...

> 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.

That is perhaps the point, yes. Any plan should therefore be
good. Shall we make such a plan or let this chance pass? True
bottom-up consensus of stakeholders, yes or no?

-- 
Marc