Re: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> The following draft tries to put the policy consensus we arrived
> at into the Unsponsored, Unrestricted, format. (It was
> surprisingly easy.

If the policies that were outlined in the TF report can easily be
mapped into more than one of the UU/UR/SU/SR models, the way that
they are labelled is clearly not crucial to the report's underlying
purpose.

> I am having more trouble converting the old consensus to the
> Sponsored, Restricted model, but should have something late
> tomorrow.)

I trust that this is not a suggestion that TF consensus can
unilaterally be converted into anything else, somehow retaining the
notion of consensus while changing its substantive basis, without
reestablishing it. However worthwhile realigning our ideas into an
alternative framework may be, this action will require consensus
support if it's to be put forward as a statement thereof.

What happens if we, as has been variously suggested, simply allow
the labelling of the operative basis for newORG to be an aspect of
the proposals submitted by candidate operators?  Surely, we can
state the principles that we feel must be reflected in the final
arrangements without mapping them into a Named Model.

If the thing must be named here and now, I want to reassert that I
have never accepted the contention that newORG can be established
and operated without some document delimiting its policies and
target community. This document can provide for significant latitude
in its application, with the scale of conceivable enforcement
provisions extending all the way down to absolutely no
point-of-registration review, and with the oldORG registrant base
exempt from any of the new policies, but I remain unable to see how
newORG can do without some formal normative instrument.

I am not immediately concerned about whether these terms are
included in a Sponsorship Agreement or in a Registry Agreement or in
some new type of equivalent document. I am equally unconcerned, at
the moment, about the place and means by which any prescriptive or
proscriptive detail is articulated. I am, however, not prepared to
agree that there can be none.

Subsequent to the NC having us reopen the TF discussion, Milton
repeatedly stressed the importance of not going off in new
directions either in principle or detail:

> That won't be difficult IF we limit our deliberations to the
> very narrow problems identified and don't try to start over.

A large part of this was not permitting the effort and process
behind the report to be disregarded:

> Would you agree with me that major changes in the consensus,
> suggested off the cuff and by people who have not been privy to
> prior discussions, is not the way to conclude this process?

Immediately after stating this, however, he reported a shift in his
own perceptions of one of the underlying issues:

> Personally, I am tending more and more toward the unsponsored,
> unrestricted model, but in case anyone wants to move toward
> sponsored, use of a CEDRP would be a feasible way to do it.

This is a perfectly reasonable change in viewpoint and a useful
contribution to the discussion. It was followed by what I felt to be
a purposeful review of matters relating including dispute resolution
and grandfathered names. My own contributions included thoughts on
the discrepancy between the CEDRP as initially codified and the
purpose suggested above. I felt that any dispute resolution process
would require some clearly stated basis for assessing disputes, yet
again stating my belief in the need for a formal normative
instrument.

I was moderately surprised by Milton's concluding from all that
was said during the renewed dialog, that:

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

My own perception was that no clear consensus shift had occurred. If
anything, latter voices emphasised the need for our not yielding to
pressure from elsewhere in ICANN.

The latest version of the draft report introduces concepts that I
can't recall having being discussed by the TF, previously.

> I stole material freely from parts of Mike Roberts' draft.

I think that Mike's draft is a pretty good one and certainly have no
objection to using it as a verbatim basis for large pieces of our
report. At this point, though, I'm not sure that there is any basis
for expecting this to be a specimen sentiment within the TF. If
nothing else, I cannot see how we are going to reconcile the notion
of "unrestricted" with the wording:

> Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be
> recognized non-profit corporations, as that is defined in the
> legal jurisdiction in which the organization is incorporated.
> The articles of incorporation and bylaws should restrict the
> activities of the corporation to the non-profit management and
> operation of the .org top level domain name registry.

This explicity states the need for articles of restriction. My
concern about what I perceive to be the contradictory aspects of
this would evaporate if we simply left it to each prospective newORG
operator to label the model they wish to adopt, in each individual
proposal.

/Cary