[nc-org] Re: Dot org

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

Philip:
We have been discussing these issues for some time,
I have been engaged in extensive consultations
with all constituencies who are active. 

The consensus as I understand it is much closer to
"unsponsored, unrestricted" than to "sponsored 
restricted."

As both Stuart Lynn and Louis Touton pointed out, most
of the things we were trying to do via sponsorship
could be captured via stipulations regarding the type
of organization .org is delegated to. Stuart 
basically advocated the unsponsored, unrestricted
model.

If you read the original policy, upon which there WAS 
agreement, there was a very clear sense that .org
should be unrestricted and rely on marketing
practices and end-ser self-selection to differentiate
.org. 

The idea of sponsorship is much more complex
than you are making it out to be (which is one
reason why it is not advisable for you to 
haphazardly intervene to declare a 
"consensus" in a TF you have not been
participating in).

Sponsorship means the SO has a right to define
its own WHOIS policies and to be exempt from
the UDRP. I got a very strong sense from
IPCC and B&C that they did NOT want that.
I will continue to assume that that is the
case until I hear the delegated member of
this TF tell me otherwise.

Sponsorship also means that the SO has the
right to "qualify" registrars. The registrars 
have made it clear that they want ALL 
accredited ICANN registrars to be 
eligible to register in .org.

The NCDNHC is in the process of making
it clear to me that they also prefer an
unsponsored, unrestricted model.
There should be extensive deference 
to the views of NCDNHC on this because
they are the DNSO representatives of
the affected community.

In short, I see little evidence outside
B&C for the position you are advocating.
I think we need to talk much more extensively
about how our original policy consensus
could be translated into either a
"sponsored" or "unsponsored" model.

Accordingly, in my next messages I will
take the original TF report and prepare 
two alternatives. One will follow a 
"sponsored" model, the other an
"unsponsored" model.

That will give us a clearer notion of 
what the choice implies. 

>>> "Philip Sheppard" <philip.sheppard@aim.be> 12/19/01 04:07AM >>>
Milton and the dot org TF,

allow me to add my opinion (while Grant is travelling and may not be posting). I believe that Mike Roberts latest e-mail captures the BC position perfectly and would seem to be close to the TF consensus. (The published BC position I believe would defer to recent debate over restricted/unrestricted).

As I understand it the TF wants:
- dot org reassigned to a not for profit registry
- dot org marketed for non-commercial organisations
- no one thrown out (grandfathering)
- registry to follow ICANN consensus policies (whois, udrp etc)
- all accredited ICANN registrars able to sell registrations in .org. 

 
Louis asks to categorise it as either:
(a) sponsored and restricted (like .museum) - with devolved ICANN policy-formulation ability
(b) unsponsored and restricted (like .name or .biz) - no devolved policy
(c) unsponsored and unrestricted (like .com or .info or .org today )- no devolved policy
but not sponsored and unrestricted.
 
We can eliminate c) and b) as too wild, no change from the status quo and for the reasons Mike Roberts has outlined. So the preferred option must be (a).  

What is now left then is a little more thought on what grandfathering means.
And if the TF is comfortable with the type of passive enforcement outlined by Mike Roberts. 

Philip