[nc-org] A proposal for newORG (fwd)

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

I haven't noted that this has been forwarded to the list yet.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 12:51:33 -0800
From: Bret Fausett <fausett@lextext.com>
To: Milton Mueller <Mueller@syr.edu>, Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>,
     "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>, kstubbs@digitel.net,
     philip.sheppard@aim.be, Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr, ck@nic.museum,
     grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz
Subject: A proposal for newORG

Task Force members -- My apologies if you receive this twice, but I'm not
sure that I have posting privileges to your mailing list. I'm sending this
to a handful of you whom I know in the hope that you'll give it
consideration in your ongoing conversations. -- Bret

----
I've been closely following the debate on the structure of newORG and have a
suggestion for a way through the current impasse.

Rather than focusing on the kind of organization -- sponsored, unsponsored,
restricted, unrestricted, profit, non-profit -- that should receive the
delegation of .org, the work product of the DNSO might simply articulate a
set of policy, management, and registration goals for a newORG.

For example, reasonable goals might include:

 1. newORG should be a namespace primarily dedicated
    to the service of non-commercial organizations,
    non-profits, associations, and similar enterprises
    and their related services, products, events, and
    activities.

 2. newORG should adopt adequate protections and registration
    procedures to ensure that existing registrants of the
    .org TLD and their successors can continue to use their
    domain name registrations without interruption.

Then, without prejudging the kind of organization that can best meet those
goals, invite bids from companies and organizations of any legal type and
from any of the following categories of TLD:

  a. Unsponsored, unrestricted
  b. Unsponsored, restricted
  c. Sponsored, unrestricted *
  d. Sponsored, restricted

The bidders themselves would provide more details on just how they would
implement the enumerated goals. For example, if you set a goal, as described
in (2) above, encouraging a "grandfather" provision, leave the details of
how that provision should be implemented to the bidders. Competition and the
bidder's desire to serve the community and meet the Task Force's enumerated
goals should get you what you need, without requiring the task force to
create the policies themselves at a high degree of implementation detail.

See what you get and then ask the Board to select the proposal that is best
able to meet the goals described in the DNSO report. I think you'll be
pleasantly surprised at what you'll receive from bidders.

If it so chose, the DNSO also could evaluate the proposals against the
enumerated goals prior to the Board's selection. Public comment on how the
proposals met the enumerated goals also would be accepted.

I think if the DNSO community refocuses on the goals of a newORG, rather
than business/TLD type, it will be able to reach a consensus more easily.
Open competition among bidders, of all types, to meet those goals will allow
for more creative and detailed solutions that you're likely to get from the
task force.

Please consider this approach in your ongoing discussions.

     -- Bret Fausett

--
* I've been skeptical of the "sponsored, unrestricted" model, but I might
well be wrong. The nice thing about the proposal described above is that it
allows bidders to come forward with more concrete proposals that can be
evaluated more completely by the DNSO and ICANN communities. We would no
longer be evaluating the merits of different TLD models in a vacuum.