Re: [nc-org] Dot org

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Philip:

> What is now left then is a little more thought on what
> grandfathering means.

One important point is covered with Ken Stubbs's observation, "there
has to be provisions to insure that in the event of mergers or
acquisitions, the survivor or acquiring entity has the right to
transfer ownership rights in the service contract to themselves with
the assurance that the character of the domain does not change (I.e.
retention of "grandfather rights")."

Am I correct in assuming that we should address this in a manner
that doesn't risk creating an open market in grandfathered .org
names?  Are there any other pivotal concerns under this heading?

> And if the TF is comfortable with the type of passive
> enforcement outlined by Mike Roberts.

Is there a realistically implementable alternative?

The legacy component of the registrant base will be exempted from
restrictions and review, and thus won't encumber any enforcement
mechanisms. The anticipated scope of the influx of new registrants
should provide some basis for determining the feasibility of active
alternatives. (This is being confronted head-on with .museum
although I cannot suggest that the approach being implemented there
would scale to a TLD of .org proportion.)

/Cary