[nc-org] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] An overview of the issue

[Dany Vandromme <vandrome@renater.fr>]

Milton
Even if I could not participate actively in the debate, I share your 5%
part analysis
Dany


Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> U,U = "unrestricted, unsponsored"
> S,R = "sponsored, restricted"
> 
> As we consider the distinction between sponsored
> and unsponsored, here are some things to keep
> in mind:
> 
> 1. The stakes are fairly low.
> 
> Dot org is not a "problem" now. There is nothing
> about it that causes special or unique issues
> in regards to trademarks, whois, registrars, etc.
> Org registrants are not clamoring for new policies,
> business/IP interests are not tormented by
> renegade .org registrants.
> 
> 2. Divestiture itself is half the battle.
> 
> The primary rationale for this whole exercise
> was to get dot org out of Verisign's hands and
> into someone else's hands. That is, the impetus
> came from promoting competition. So that
> objective is achieved merely by executing
> the divestiture expeditiously.
> 
> 3. Representing the noncommercial sector
> is the other half (or 45%?) of the battle.
> 
> Whatever issues remain are pretty much
> solved (some would say only partially solved)
> by making the new administrator of ORG
> representative, supportive, and
> responsive to noncommercial domain
> name registrants. That will ensure that the
> domain is promoted and administered in
> the appropriate ways.
> 
> I think we alll agree on the 3 points above.
> 
> 4. The (contested) remaining 5%
> 
> The only point at issue, then, is the degree, if
> any, of restriction to be imposed on the domain.
> We can execute points 1-3 via a U,U model.
> If we want to impose restrictions we must
> choose a S,R model.
> 
> Why I currently lean toward U,U:
> 
> * We originally agreed on S,U, and it seems clear
> that the objectives of the original report could
> be easily achieved within a U,U framework.
> Both Stuart Lynn and L. Touton have
> made the same point.
> 
> * S,R increases uncertainty and raises the
> stakes.
> As an .org registrant, I do not lose any
> sleep at night over the fact that someone,
> somewhere in the world might use an .org
> name for commercial purposes. As time passes
> and commercial TLD options increase any
> associated threat will decrease. I might,
> however, lose sleep over the fact that
> registrants could be thrown out of the domain.
> I don't know what form a CEDRP will take.
> I would expect the costs of administering the
> domain to increase with restriction. I expect
> the complexity of a S,R policy to be much
> greater, and the difficulty of selecting a
> winner to increase.
> 
> * There does not seem to be much
> support for imposing restrictions among the
> noncommercial registrant community itself.
> 
> That's my assessment at this stage; I
> welcome other views.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme@renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------