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

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

Cary:

As I said to Philip, we are dealing narrowly with the 
problem of the sponsored or unsponsored status of 
dot org. We have a policy the intent of which is supported
by most constituencies, we simply have to find
a way to make it conform to the template contracts.

I suggested use of a CEDRP as a simple way to
structure .org as a sponsored domain, without
straying too far from the prior consensus on keeping
org unrestricted. 

Personally, I am tending more and more toward
the unsponsored, unrestricted model, but in case
anyone wants to move toward sponsored, use of
a CEDRP would be a feasible way to do it.

According to Louis, a domain cannot be sponsored
unless it exercises some authority over eligibility.
Recall our earlier agreement that while differentiation
was desirable, the costs, risks and ambiguities of
attempting to enforce prior restrictions was simply not
worth the minimal gains. A CEDRP that relied entirely
on end-user initiation, and allowed the sponsor to not
bother trying to enforce any ex ante restrictions,
seems like a good way to enforce differentiation
at minimal expense and restrictiveness.

Your statement that a CEDRP is intended to be used
to slap the wrist of sponsors who don't adequately 
enforce restrictions may be valid in the traditional
sponsored model, but obviously there is flexibility
here. 

>>> Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum> 12/18/01 04:50AM >>>
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