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

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

a very good point on the beginning paragraph.  i cannot support the initial
wording either..

sounds like we are giving "orders" rether than providing input

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cary Karp" <ck@nrm.se>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2001 9:01 AM
Subject: [nc-org] Re: Final version of ORG policy statement for public
comment


> > The ICANN Board is instructed to award the ORG domain only to
> > applicants that conform to the following criteria:
>
> Do DNSO consensus reports normally begin with direct instructions to
> the Board?  If so, fine. If not, doing so here may put a negative
> bias on the way the Board reads everything that follows. If it is
> felt that they need to mend their ways vis-a-vis their treatment of
> DNSO actions, opening the present report in an imperative manner may
> not be the most purposeful way of attaining that goal. It might be
> more to the point to open:
>
> "The DNSO finds that responsibility for the policy and operation of
> the .org TLD should be delegated to an organization that conforms to
> the following criteria:"
>
> > The new ORG top-level domain should be a sponsored but
> > unrestricted domain.
>
> The wording "award ... only to" clearly states a restriction on the
> operation of newORG. We cannot logically then go on to say that
> there are no restrictions. How about:
>
> "The revised .org TLD should be sponsored but no eligibility
> restrictions should be imposed on the prospective registrants."
>
> > 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 definition of the target community will be a key part of the
> Sponsorship Agreement and it will not be up to the Sponsoring
> Organization to define this autonomously subsequent to the signing
> of that Agreement. I suggest:
>
> "Each candidate Sponsoring Organization should include in its
> application a definition of the relevant community for which names
> in the .org TLD are intended, detailing the specific types of
> registrants who constitute the target market for .org, and proposing
> 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.
>
> The wording of this paragraph is in direct opposition to the basis
> for sTLD operation. Also, the notion of "police" harmonizes poorly
> with the lack of restrictions. I suggest:
>
> "The Task Force specifically requests public comment on the
> feasibility and desirability of using the contract between the
> Sponsoring Organization and the registrars to ensure that the
> marketing and branding practices specified in the .org Charter are
> upheld."
>
> > 1b. Unrestricted
>
> I suggest focusing this heading on eligibility:
>
> "1b. Unrestricted Eligibility"
>
> > 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).
>
> Although hardly a matter of fine-tuning language, it might be worth
> an extra day to add some text specifically about the CEDRP that has
> latterly been introduced into the stock sTLD agreement.
>
> > 2. Characteristics of the Entity
>
> This isn't the place for the stylistic avoidance of redundancy. The
> entity will be the "Sponsoring Organization" and nothing else. I
> suggest that every reference to the SO should be indicated solely in
> that manner (i.e. as 'the Sponsoring Organization', 'SO', or
> 'Sponsor').
>
> > It should be authorized to contract with commercial service
> > providers to perform technical and service functions.
>
> Just so that nobody here is confused about the way ICANN is
> establishing sTLDs -- in an sTLD agreement the subcontracted
> back-end service provider is the Registry Operator. Although both
> the SO and the registrars will be dealing with the registry, the
> registrants will not. Although registrars maintain end-user customer
> relations for the uTLDs, the Registry Operator gets the splash. In
> the sTLD case, the Registry Operator is all but invisible and it is
> the SO that makes the headlines.
>
> > The new ORG registry must function efficiently and reliably. The
> > entity chosen by ICANN ...
>
> It will be the SO and not ICANN that selects the registry.
>
> "The new .org registry must function efficiently and reliably. The
> operator chosen by the Sponsor ..."
>
> Finally, please note that I am using the form ".org TLD"  because it
> conforms to usage in ICANN's own documentation of the gTLD process.
> I suggest that it be applied consistently in our report, as well.
>
> That does it for me.
>
> /Cary
>