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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

As promised, some further comment on a few details.

On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, at 18:48 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> 
> Statement of Policy (v 3.0, September 23, 2001)

> 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.

Could we add at the end "or to transfer them to others"?

> 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.

Could this be slightly stronger? As it stands, it can be ignored.

> 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.

The phrasing may be interpreted as excluding any applicant that hasn't
raised a lot of funds in advance. 

> 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.

The new operator of ORG should perhaps have the ability to stop using
certain registrars that refuse (again and again) to take notice of the
marketing efforts?

> 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. 

And also participate in the process of selection? I know this has been
shot down somewhere along the road. Is the above the ultimate to
suggest?

Thanks again, Milton, for all your efforts!

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG