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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, at 13:59 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:

[...]
> > 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.
> 
> MS: Could this be slightly stronger? As it stands, it can be
> ignored.
> 
> MM ===> How about: "The DNSO requires applicants to propose
> governance structures that provide ORG registrants
> with...."

Fine! Thx.

[...]
> MS: 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?
> 
> MM ===> See my response to Guillermo. I think the registrars 
> need to weigh in on this. I am not opposed to the idea, but am
> concerned about adding cost and restriction and bureaucracy to
> the administration of ORG. 

So am I. But new ORG should be able to get rid of registrars that
frustrate its marketing policy. These registrars could then still
handle existing registrations made through them, but no new ones. If
not, then the policy will be easily frustrated. Registrars are in the 
business of selling as many names as they can. We can't blame them
for that. So there has to be a way to deal with 'bad' marketing on the
registrar level. The registry itself will not have much change for
effective marketing a target registration base, since it sells
throught the registrars. We do not have to and cannot as you point
out, set specific rules. We can ask for a way to deal with the
problem. The applicants should make it clear how they are going to
implement this marketing strategy through the 100plus registrars. 

[...]