RE: [nc-org] Final version of ORG policy statement for public comment

["Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>]

Thank you Milton:

I have two suggestions:

1.- Sponsored but unrestricted. Considering that you have asked for public
comments regarding the marketing policies and the feasibility to include
certain policies at a registry-registrar level, I would also ask for public
comments comments regarding  second paragraph of section 1 b). Our approach
to the unrestricted nature of this name space will change if the marketing
policy is not effective.

The way you have defined the relevant community may create some objection.
However I suggest to leave it as is to get public feed-back.

2.- Icann Policies. As indicated before, I still donīt see reflected my
prior comments about the level of consistency applicable to this name space.
If consistency means not getting less protection to IP rights as those
existing today, specially at the dispute resolution level and access to the
WHOIS database, we believe it wil be appropriate. Considering that this is a
name space that would remain unrestricted, these safeguards are important.

Guillermo




-----Mensaje original-----
De: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Enviado el: Jueves, 27 de Septiembre de 2001 22:51
Para: 
Asunto: [nc-org] Final version of ORG policy statement for public
comment


Please, only minor language changes at this
point. --MM


NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE

Statement of Policy (v 3.1, September 27, 2001)

The ICANN Board is instructed to award the ORG domain 
only to applicants that conform to the following criteria:

1. ORG Should be a Sponsored, Unrestricted Domain

The new ORG top-level domain should be a sponsored but 
unrestricted domain.

1a. Sponsored.
The sponsoring organization should develop a 
definition of the relevant community for which ORG 
domain names are intended. The new administrator would 
define the specific types of registrants who 
constitute the target market for ORG and propose 
marketing and branding practices oriented toward that 
community. The marketing practices should not 
encourage defensive or duplicative registrations.

The Task Force specifically requests public comment 
on the feasibility and desirability of using registry-
registrar contracts to guide or police the way the 
ORG registrations are marketed by registrars. 

Regarding the definition of the relevant community, 
the DNSO offers this guidance: the definition should 
include not only traditional noncommercial and non-
profit organizations, but individuals and groups 
seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and 
information exchange, unincorporated cultural, 
educational and political organizations, and business 
partnerships with non-profits and community groups for 
social initiatives.

1b. Unrestricted
With a defined community and appropriate marketing
practices in place, the sponsoring organization and 
operating registry would rely entirely on end-user 
choice to determine who registers in ORG.

Specifically: the new entity:
* Must not evict existing registrants who don't 
  conform to its target ommunity. 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 
  or transfer them to others.
* Must not attempt to impose prior restrictions 
   on people or organizations attempting to make new 
   registrations;
* Must not adopt a new dispute initiation procedure
   to take away registrations ex post (other than the 
   UDRP, which would apply as per #4 below).

2. Characteristics of the Entity

Administration of ORG should be delegated to a
non-profit entity with international support and 
participation from .ORG registrants and non-commercial 
organizations inside and outside of the ICANN process. 
It should be authorized to contract with commercial 
service providers to perform technical and service 
functions. Either new or existing organizations should 
be eligible to apply.

Applicants should propose policies and practices 
supportive of noncommercial participants in the ICANN 
process. 

The DNSO requires 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.

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.
 
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 t end users.

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 accurately reflects the DNSO policy. 
Its approval is required before publishing the request
for proposals.