Re: [nc-org] Let's respect and try to retain bottom up process

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Agree with some observations from Cary.

a. The NC not the TF is forwarding recommendations to ICANN
b. An attribute of sponsorhip is indeed the power to select
   registrars, therefore dependent issue. 

Over the NC call it was pointed out that Constituencies read
documents once those are at the stage of "final draft"
- it is indeed very true.

Here are pertinent comments I receive from some ccTLD.

Elisabeth


--------Comments to 6 items---------------------------------
>1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored, 
>Unrestricted Domain.

We strongly agree that .org should remain an unrestricted domain.

We believe that the sponsorship model is not a prerequisite 
for ensuring greater stakeholder influence over the domain. 
Indeed, this could also be achieved by strong stakeholder 
representation in the governance model of the registry 
concerned. However, if the new sponsored, unrestricted model
is preferred, there should be a review of this built into 
the ICANN programme, to assess whether this new model is 
achieving the desired aims.

>2. Guidelines for Sponsorship
>2b. Definition of marketing practices

We suggest that the development of best practice guidelines 
and examples would also be appropriate in order to demonstrate 
openess and transparency and to encourage relevant and 
non-discriminatory marketing materials.


>3. Unrestricted Eligibility

We strongly agree that there should be no evictions or prior 
restrictions.

We are concerned about the wording of the final paragraph. 
As written, it appears that changes to the UDRP would not apply, 
neither would the registry be able to introduce a pre UDRP 
mediation stage, which might be of considerable benefit to 
the type of registrants in the .org TLD.


>4. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization

We are most concerned about the use of the phrase 'commercial 
service providers' in the first paragraph.
This suggests that the .org registry should only be by run 
an organisation that exists purely for financial gain. 
We would suggest that the .org registry would be more appropriately 
run by a non-profit organisation. At the very least, the 
possibility of it being run by either a non-profit or a
commercial organisation should be stated. 

We would also suggest that the selection criteria for the 
Sponsoring Organisation should include reference to the expected 
surpluses from the .org registry. The overall uses of such 
funds should be in the vision and strategy of the Sponsoring 
Organisation, which should define the scope eg. the digital 
divide fund. However, the application detail should include the
management of the scheme, the methods by which funds might 
be allocated, how transparency and fairness will be ensured 
and any bias removed etc.


>5. The Registry Operator

Proposals should clearly detail which matters of policy will 
be determined at Supporting Organisation level or at the 
Registry level. The Registry Operator should demonstrate 
commitment to the relevant stakeholders and define structures 
to ensure sufficient co-ordination and liaison with the
Supporting Organisation.

Whilst it is agreed that the price of registration should 
be as low as possible consistent with the maintenance of 
good quality service, this should not be the sole criteria. 
The registry must also clearly demonstrate sufficient 
investment in the .org infrastructure and the development of
.org operations. 

>6. ICANN Policies

We agree with the comment regarding the alteration of technical 
protocols and suggest that this sentence should be worded more 
widely to cover the alteration of any other protocols or 
operating procedures which would impair the ability of 
accredited registrars to sell names to end users.

--