[nc-org] Re: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

Marilyn makes a good point here on the "grandfathered names" transfer. This
issue has concerns of registrars as well. We need to insure that, in the
case of transfer on mergers or acquisition of the entity who currently owns
a "grandfather service contract" , provisions be made for continuance of
these  "grandfather rights"

These types of issues are  very important... I feel that these types of
provisions part of "basic policy" and should be "mandated" to whatever
entity ends up with the registry mgt contract.

But how and when do you start getting "specific" without getting "too
specific" in the RFP process

Ken stubbs



----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "'Cary Karp'" <ck@nic.museum>; <council@dnso.org>
Cc: "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be>
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 7:25 AM
Subject: RE: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report


> Cary, Grant is traveling and may not have seen this. I will communicate
with
> him on the BC input, but wanted to provide a short note to the TF on this
> issue in the event he isn't online.
>
> I believe that grandfathered names would have to be transferred in the
event
> of mergers, takeovers, etc. since the website would probably transfer to
the
> new entity.
>
> I will ask for some feedback from within the BC and will consult with
Grant
> re BC input.
>
> Marilyn
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cary Karp [mailto:ck@nic.museum]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 4:50 AM
> To: council@dnso.org
> Cc: Philip Sheppard
> Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report
>
>
> Quoting Philip:
>
> > Can the TF agree to limit the protection of registrants ill
> > suited to the character of dot org, to past registrants only?
>
> There is a corollary issue that should also be considered. It may
> prove useful to indicate that this protection only applies to the
> holders of previously registered .org names on the newORG effective
> date. The subsequent transfer of such domains should be subject to
> all the conditions that apply to new registrations.
>
> I am being as careful as I can be to avoid using the term
> "restriction" but probably should note that I have never been
> convinced that we will be able to nudge newORG in any particular
> direction simply by providing its operator with guidelines for
> marketing or anything else. If we don't care about such direction,
> this entire discussion may not be all that purposeful. If we do care
> about direction, I don't see how it can be established without some
> form of normative instrument. Measures for the enforcement of that
> instrument are probably best treated as a separate issue.
>
> Returning to another matter raised by Milton:
>
> > There is, however, another way to meet Louis' insistence
> > on a division of all TLDs into the categories "sponsored"
> > or "unsponsored." And that is to make newOrg conform
> > more completely to the sponsored model, by employing
> > a CEDRP and by delegating to the sponsoring organization
> > the authority to come up with its own WHOIS policy.
>
> A precondition for the CEDRP is, by definition, the existence of a
> TLD charter with clearly stated eligibility requirements. The CEDRP
> is invoked when a third party feels that the Sponsor has not acted
> according to the relevant terms of that charter. If the primary
> policy control in a TLD is provided by the CEDRP, enforcement would
> be left to the user community. Although this may be an intriguing
> notion, it may also be somewhat self-contradictory. There is no
> basis for CEDRP action unless the Sponsor has not been adequately
> diligent in respecting the terms of the TLD charter. If the Sponsor
> is duly rigorous in this regard, the CEDRP will not play an active
> role in the daily operation of the TLD.
>
> Please note that I am not arguing against the relevance of the CEDRP
> to newORG, nor am I arguing for the need for "trespassers will be
> shot" signs as policy enforcement measures are considered.
>
> /Cary
>