[nc-org] Re: Dot org

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

>>> Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us> 12/19/01 11:45AM >>>

> Milton - I think these comments are a bit disingenuous. 
> Neither the NC nor the Board is about to sanction a 
> sponsored registry agreement for dot-org that contains 
> either of these provisions, so the alleged danger is a 
> red herring.

The UDRP and WHOIS points come from Louis, 
not from me. When Louis was insisting that we conform 
to the sponsored model he specifically outlined "delegated 
authorities" that were required. To quote:

"These delegated items fall into six broad categories:
A. naming conventions within the TLD, restrictions, and 
name-selection principles (items 1-5 and 14);
B. additional dispute-resolution mechanisms (item 6);
C. selection and supervision of the registry operator (items 7-9);
D. selection of qualified registrars, practices of registrars, 
and terms of dealing of registrars with registrants and the registry
operator (items 10-13);
E. start-up of the TLD (item 15); and
F. Whois policies (item 16)."

Louis' objection to our original report was that the
purportedly "sponsored" domain exercised
authority in only one of these areas (D). He 
specifically targeted item 6 of our report, which said 
that the newORG would conform to standard ICANN
policies regarding dispute resolution and WHOIS.
His argument was simple: "if it conforms to all
standard ICANN policies then it is not a sponsored
domain. ICANN is the policy maker not the SO." 

Now, if the original proposal - which commanded
agreement from all affected constituencies - 
was not viable because it only delegated
authority in one of these areas, why wouldn't
a "sponsored, restricted" proposal that would 
only delegate authority in one area (A), and use it
sparingly at that, also be not viable? 

There is also a political dimension to this. I can 
get the NCDNHC to accept a sponsored,
restricted model, but ONLY if the payoff is
the authority to exempt dot ORG from
standard WHOIS. I think we could get them
to accept application of the UDRP, provided
that the CEDRP put on top of it was NOT
administered by WIPO, but the WHOIS
issue would be a show-stopper.

--MM