[nc-org] Re: Final (v. 3.2) ORG Policy Statement

[Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se>]

There are a few typos and stylistic inconsistencies in the present
draft and, as long as I'm at it again, I'll make some minor
substantive comments --

> 1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored, Unrestricted Domain

Perhaps we should head this:

"1. .org Should be a Sponsored Top-level Domain"

gTLDs are currently being characterized simply as sponsored and
unsponsored. We clearly state that there are to be no eligibility
restrictions in the text immediately under this heading, so there
can be no doubt as to our intent.


> 1a. Sponsored.
> Each candidate Sponsoring Organization should include ...

This is the first usage of the term "Sponsoring Organization" and it
is here that the abbreviation should be indicated:

"Each candidate Sponsoring Organization (SO) should include ..."


> between the Sponsoring Organization and the registrars

"between the SO and the registrars"


> to ensure that the marketing and branding practices
> specified in the .org Charter are upheld.

"specified in the .org TLD Charter are upheld."


> partnerships with non-profts and community groups for

"... non-profits ..."


> 1b. Unrestricted Eligibility
> 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.

Policy maintenance will be the concern of the SO and registrars,
not the registry. Suggest:

"With a defined community and appropriate marketing practices in
place, the SO and registrars would rely entirely on end-user choice
to determine who holds names in .org."

Note that we are now referring to the ".org TLD" simply as ".org".
This is perfectly okay but we should do so consistently in the
subsequent text. The same observation applies to the abbreviation
SO, subsequent to its first use.


> * Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, a new
> dispute initiation procedure (such as a CEDRP) to take away
> registrations ex post. The UDRP would apply as per #4 below,
> however.

The notion of permitting third party complaint about the diligence
with which the SO is upholding its charter is entirely reasonable.
The purpose of the CEDRP is to provide such a mechanism. The
complaints about it that thus far have been stated relate to its
rabbit-out-of-a-hat appearance. The only situation in which the
CEDRP might be invoked in newORG is where the SO fails to take
action against a registrar that is disregarding the marketing
policy. Why would we not want to have formal means for external
complaint to be initiated in such cases?  To be sure, any such
procedure should have a clear consensus basis. Since it is our task
to act on consensus issues, I think that we should spend more time
with this. We could say:

"Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, dispute
initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of
domain delegations, without first establishing a consensus basis for
such procedures.  However, the UDRP would apply as per #4 below, and
the purpose underlying the newly introduced CEDRP should be closely
considered as new .org policies are established."


> 2. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization Administration
> of the .org TLD should be delegated to a non-profit Sponsoring
> Organization (SO) with

It may be worth using the extensive forms here but the paranthetical
reference to SO should be deleted.

"... non-profit Sponsoring Organization with ..."


> international support and participation from .org registrants ...

"international support and participation from current .org registrants ...


> Either new or existing organizations should be eligible to apply
> to become the SO.

Suggest adding:

"A new organization need not be formally incorporated prior to
submitting its application."


> practices supportive of noncommercial participants in ...

... non-commercial ...


> The DNSO requires SO applicants to propose governance
> structures that provide .org TLD registrants with the

We don't need to say TLD.


> of service for all .org users worldwide, includig a

... including ...


> The .org TLD's administration must adhere to

... TLD ...


> 5. Follow Up
> The DNSO Task Force developing policy for the .org
> TLD should review the request for proposals prepared

Again, a simple reference to ".org" would suffice. Otherwise, we
should be stringent in the use of the form "the .org TLD",
throughout the text.


> The Task Force specifically asks that the RFP not require an
> non-refundable application fee larger than US$ 1,000.

Do we really want to say this?  A lot of organzations blew $50,000
on postage stamps for applications for gTLDs that would never
generate more than a miniscule fraction of what .org does.
I am not suggesting that the previous fee be permitted to set
precedent, but do think that this might be worth a initiative of its
own. I suggest:

"The Task Force specifically asks that the RFP allows for variation
in the size of any application fees, for the express purpose of
permitting organizations with limited financial capability to submit
applications. We also request that a mechanism for the whole or
partial refund of such fees be established for unsuccessful
applications submitted by organizations in the latter category."

/Cary