[nc-org] Re: Dot org report

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2001-11-08 20:05:23 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>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.

So why does the task force bother with "details" such as the 
question of the application fee, or the question whether or not a 
new organization must be formally incorporated before submitting a 
proposal?

Also, in case it helps, the board resolution explicitly asks the 
DNSO to comment on "the characteristics of the entity to be selected 
or established", "selection criteria for the entity or its 
organizers", "principles governing its relationship with ICANN", 
"policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain". 
That's quite a bit of detail, and it could in particular cover 
policies concerning the relationship between the entity and a 
registry outsourcing partner, for instance.  In fact, such policies 
may be considerably more important than the details mentioned above.

>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.

I'm not the genius who crafted the overly-tight agenda for the 
public comment process, and then let the first week of November pass 
without any actual results - that's the task force's cup of tea.  Or 
are you suggesting that I should have refrained from making any 
comments in the first place because the task force doesn't have the 
time to take these into account anyway?

>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.

You may be right about that, and I actually hope you are.

Still, the policy you propose is making me wonder what kinds of 
proposals the task force is trying to attract - you don't really 
want applicants who aren't able to get something incorporated, and 
who can't afford more than $1,000 in non-refundable fees, do you? So 
why practically invite these in the policy?

While you are right that it's impossible to create competence by 
just writing a policy (and I never suggested anything else), it's 
incredibly easy (but still a bad idea) to attract incompetence by 
casting the wrong kind of policy.

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

"Many people"?  It was introduced in Manon Ress' comment, like this:

   We also believe that the administrator of the proposed sponsored 
   and unrestricted .org must keep the cost of registration as low as 
   possible, consistent with the need to provide effective service.

You quoted this in your Oct 30 message to nc-org:

   There was also a comment asking the statement to make sure that 
   the new sponsoring org "keep the cost of registration as low as 
   possible, consistent with the need to provide effective service."

Then, Marc Schneiders supported it.

Note, in particular, that, back then, the addition contained the 
words "consistent with the need to provide effective service".  That 
is, the task force wasn't even asked to put in a requirement for 
_unconditionally_ low cost.  It seems the problematic version of 
this clause first turns up in your Nov 8 message to nc-org 
containing your proposed modifications.


BTW, any comments on how the CEDRP could ever be adapted in the way 
which is suggested by the policy draft?  The relevant paragraph 
still looks contradictory to me, and should be removed unless the 
contradiction can be resolved.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.org/