[nc-org] Re: Dot org report

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

>>> Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> 
11/08/01 07:13PM >>>

Of course, I am suggesting requirements for an RFP.  

MM ====> 
I suggest you save those suggestions for 
the RFP itself, and even more appropriately, 
for the applications which come after it is issued. 

TR:
However, most of these suggestions are in response 
to elements of an RFP which are already contained in 
version 3.3 of the policy.  

MM ===> No, these are obviously very general 
statements of desiderata. I suggest referring to 
the ICANN Board's charge to the DNSO. 
A very specific set of questions are posed, which we 
answered. It does not ask us to write a detailed RFP.

TR:
I still have strong doubts whether this decision is actually 
reflecting community consensus - in particular, I'm missing _any_ 
outreach efforts into the circle of current .org registrants.  The 
NCDNHC is hardly representative of these registrants.

MM ===> 
Sorry, I refuse to play this game, which seems
to have become a deep part of the culture of ICANN.
Consensus is an undefined term, there is no precise
method to measure it, and any lone individual or 
group can (and often does) abuse the term by 
declaring that it does or does not exist when they
find it convenient to do so. 

However limited and imperfectly representative is 
the NCDNHC, my friend, it is vastly more so than 
your individual personal opinion. A lot of consultation
went into it and those organizations are pretty
happy with the statement. If you can line up
major organizations who disagree do so. Don't
presume to speak on behalf of a mythical community.

Also, try to take into account the real time constraints
we are under. We were asked for a basic statement
of policy by Oct 11, the Board must issue a RFP as 
soon as possible to give parties time to prepare, and
there is a hard deadline of December 2002 for the 
changeover.

TR:
and just like in the non-profit vs. for-profit case, the 
task force should make clear that an unincorporated 
sponsoring organization candidate must present 
evidence that it is as credible as an incorporated 
candidate.

MM ===> 
I find this unnecessary at this stage. 
The parties bidding for dot org have every
incentive to demonstrate their competence
and to prepare a proper business plan.
The people evaluating bids have every incentive
to look for competence, responsibility and a
proper business plan. 
The idea that we magically create competence
and responsibility in all applicants by asking 
for it in a policy document strikes me as a kind of 
superstition. 

Here's an analogy: The person
in charge of an incorporated organization might 
be mentally unstable. This could have very bad
implications for management of the TLD. Shall the 
policy therefore specify that only organizations 
run by mentally stable people should apply? Shall 
we make sure to include a "no terrorists need apply" 
clause in the policy? That might make Mike Roberts
happy. How about specifiying that the organization's
lawyers and accountants must have at least 5 
years of professional experience? Do you really
think you increase the competence of applicants
by specifying such things? Do you really think 
we will be unable to recognize a solid and
competent applicant unless such things are in
the policy statement? 

Final note: 
I agree with you about the "lowest cost possible,"
but many people invovled in the process asked for it.
I'd be happy to remove it if others on the Task Force
support your criticism of it.