Re: [nc-org] You asked for it, now perform

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> ... let me know what concerns you have.

One key concern is ensuring that our TF is recognized as having
played a signficant role in establishing the framework for newORG.
Should we fail to do so, we will have done no service to the NC and
may, if things go really wrong, erode its credibility as an
articulator of consensus.

A clear metric of our success will be the extent to which our report
is reflected in what ends up being presented to the ICANN Board. The
perceptions of those who most immediately prepare the Board's agenda
are thus not an irrelevant concern to us. However well we may feel
consensus to have been established within the NC, there have been
some pretty clear signals that our ideas are not necessarily going
to be carried forwarded in the extension of the process. Spending
some extra time to ensure that we have fully understood the
viewpoints of those into whose hands our report is being placed
strikes me as potentially fruitful action. Deferring the NC decision
on our report by one meeting is a price worth paying, especially if
it ends up being worded in a manner that enhances the likelihood of
our efforts being seen as a worthwhile contribution to the newORG
intiative.

> I suggest that you also review Section 6. If as Louis suggests
> there is a potential inconsistency between "sponsorship" and the
> general admonition to follow ICANN policies, then how would you
> propose to modify that section?

One step in the right direction has been our relinquishing the
"sponsored unrestricted" categorization. I'm not sure how much
further difficulty there will be in retaining the notion of
sponsorship but an alternate proposal that I assume several of us
have seen (a synthesis of our report and discussions external to it)
gives:

"Operating Policies. In general, registry operating principles
should reflect those contained in the model agreement for sponsored
registries, with adjustments where necessary to reflect any unique
circumstances associated with the redelegation of the .org registry.
Operating policies that are within the purview of the sponsoring
non-profit corporation should be subject to the policy development
process described in (b) above."

Where (b) is:

"Entity Characteristics. Applicants for sponsorship and operation
of the .org registry should be recognized non-profit corporations,
as that is reasonably defined in the legal jurisdiction in which the
organization is incorporated. The articles of incorporation and
bylaws should restrict the activities of the corporation to the
non-profit management and operation of the .org top level domain
name registry. The initial and continuing composition of the Board
of Directors should reflect the interests and concerns of the
holders of .org domain names, as well as the global principles for
the operation of the domain name system under the leadership and
coordination of ICANN. The bylaws should provide explicitly for an
open, transparent and participative process by which .org operating
policies are initiated, reviewed and revised in a manner which
reflects the interests of .org domain name holders and is consistent
with the terms of its registry agreement with ICANN."

Does this reflect an approach that we would feel comfortable
incorporating in our report?

/Cary