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

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

"Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu> wrote:
> 
> Elisabeth:
> 
> These are very good caveats, however, as a policy making body
> implementation details are beyond our purview. As you may have
> noticed I am not a big admirer of ICANN management and staff,
> and generally believe they have too much power. However, in
> this area I think it is the responsibility of ICANN Board and managemnet
> and staff, when selecting an applicant, to take these kind of details
> into account, while following our policy.
> 
> 
> 

Humm. 

After a disaster following WG-C report on new gTLD and giving 
carte blanche to ICANN staff, I strongly and respectifully disagree 
that implementation details are beyond our work.
It is the _essence_ of our work.

Let me summarize POLICY matters:

First: I understand we agreed (almost ?) that the key issue for 
dot Org is to have it unrestricted, but dissociated from marketing 
by dot Com, dot Net, and any other tens of dot.

Second: we read from Ken, there is no means to impose any restrictions
on marketing by Registrars.

As both first and second are contradictory, it ends up as
dot Org being twin sister to dot Com (and by extension to any other dot
Something unrestricted).

Therefore the only difference will be the perception of the string
"Org" by people.

On Intellectual Property side, are we for UDRP or was it already
abandonned ?

Now have a look on TECHNICAL and FINANCIAL matters:

On technical side we want the new dot Org Registry as good as dot Com
Registry, aka VeriSign (as customer I fully agree, the quality is 
of essence and must be imposed on Registries-Registrars).

On financial side we want it not for profit (is it correct ?),
whereas the dot Com is for profit.
It is the UNIQUE difference I see here.

What is left ?
The IMPLEMENTATION.

And it is indeed the key issue. How do you implement a not for profit
with 17 million USD of income, with customers worldwide.
Political issue or not ?

Elisabeth