Fw: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

here is some food for thought from one of our registrars

happy holidays

ken

----- Original Message -----
From: "Elana Broitman" <ebroitman@register.com>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: RE: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted


> > Thank you for circulating this draft.  Here are my comments for you to
add
> to the mix of others:
>
>
> 1. Characteristics of the Organization -- There should not be a
presumption
> of the registry being a non-profit.  Even if ICANN goes the non-profit
> route, a for-profit entity can oversee policies that promote .org for
> noncommercial registrants.  In some circumstances, a for-profit may have
> greater resources to do so.  Non-commercial input can be provided by
> advisors, etc.  It is micro management to dictate how the organization is
> incorporated.
>
> 2a. Definition of .org registrant community -- I would agree that the
> definition of the relevant community should be much broader than formal
> non-profit organizations. It could include political organizations,
> associations, etc.  But, the TF definition begins to get into content by
> using language like "outlet for noncommercial expression" - I think we'd
all
> agree that this is dangerous ground, particularly for registrars and the
> registry, which should be neutral.
>
> 2b. As for restrictions -- it is preferable to maintain a voluntary or
> inclusive aspect to at least some of the .org space.  Otherwise, we will
be
> unfair to some of the grandfathered registrants and it would be very
> difficult to administer.
>
> 2d.  Registrars - .org registry should be required to abide by the equal
> access, SLA, and code of conduct requirements in place today.
>
> 3 & 4. Financial requirements of the sponsor and the registry operator -
> both entities must be financially and business sound.  It would be unfair
to
> .org registrars and registrants if the future registry were thinly
resources
> or delivered less security or service than the current registry.  In fact,
> the requirement of a .org policy mechanism will likely call for more - not
> fewer - resources, such as management, verification of registrants, thick
> WHOIS, etc.  A minimum financial/resource standard must be in the RFP.
Nor
> is it wise to rely wholly on the VRSN $5mm to make this happen, as this
> would lead to control by VRSN.
>
>
> Thanks again for the oppportunity to comment.  Elana
>
>
> of its registry agreement with ICANN.-----Original Message-----
> From: kstubbs@digitel.net
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 8:49 AM
> To: Elana Broitman; Bruce Tonkin; Scott; bevans@interaccess.com
> Subject: Fw: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted
>
>
> happy holidays to all of you..
>
> so far you have expressed interest & concerns in the dot-org redelegation.
>
> i am specifically asking you for you comments on  this proposed document.
I
> will be posting the draft out to the list but so far have received no
> comments or expressions from anyone else.
>
> i will be setting up a conference call, (hopefully this upcoming week to
> review any comments you might have). i would hope that we can do it on
> thursday afternoon aabout 4pm because this would give bruce (in
austrailia)
> a reasonable time of the day to participate.
>
> please let me know if you would be available at that time & wish to
> participate..
>
> best wishes
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
> Sent: Sunday, December 23, 2001 1:06 AM
> Subject: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted
>
>
> TF members:
>
> The following draft tries to put the policy
> consensus we arrived at into the Unsponsored,
> Unrestricted, format. (It was surprisingly
> easy. I am having more trouble converting the
> old consensus to the Sponsored, Restricted model,
> but should have something late tomorrow.)
>
> I stole material freely from parts of Mike
> Roberts' draft.
>
> ========
>
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> (Unsponsored, Unrestricted Model)
>
> The .org registry should be operated as an
> unsponsored, unrestricted domain, but responsibility
> for administration should be delegated to a non-profit
> organization that has widespread support from and acts
> on behalf of the worldwide community of organizations,
> groups, and individuals engaged in noncommercial
> communication via the Internet.
>
> 1. Characteristics of the Organization
>
> Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to
> a non-profit organization that is controlled by
> noncommercial .org registrants and non-commercial
> organizations. We recognize that noncommercial
> registrants do not have homogeneous views about policy
> and management, and that no single organization can
> fully encompass the diversity of global civil society.
> Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able
> to demonstrate support and participation from a
> significant number of international noncommercial
> registrants and organizations. The organization's
> policies and practices should strive to be responsive
> to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user
> community, and reflect as much of its diversity as
> possible.
>
> 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 th
> activities of the corporation to the non-profit
> management and operation of the .org top level domain
> name registry. Subcontracting of operational functions
> to for-profit providers is permitted.
>
> Applicants should propose governance structures that
> provide noncommercial .org registrants with the
> opportunity to directly participate in the selection
> of officers and/or policy-making council members. The
> bylaws should provide explicitly for an open,
> transparent and participatory process by which .org
> operating policies are initiated, reviewed and revised
> in a manner which reflects the interests of .org
> domain name holders and is consistent with the terms
> of its registry agreement with ICANN.
>
> 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants
>
> 2a. Definition of the .org community
> Each applicant organization should include in its
> application a definition of the relevant community for
> which names in the .org TLD are intended, detailing
> the types of registrants who constitute the target
> market for .org, and proposing marketing and branding
> practices oriented toward that community.
>
> As policy guidance, the DNSO notes that the definition
> of the relevant community should be much broader than
> formal non-profit organizations. It must also include
> individuals and groups seeking an outlet for
> noncommercial expression and information exchange,
> unincorporated cultural, educational and political
> organizations, and business partnerships with non-
> profits and community groups for social initiatives.
>
> 2b. Unrestricted eligibility
> Dot org will remain an unrestricted domain. With a
> definition of the served community and appropriate
> marketing practices in place, the organization and the
> registrars should rely entirely on end-user choice to
> determine who registers in .org.
>
> Specifically, applicants:
> · Must not propose to evict existing registrants who
> do not conform to its target community. Current
> registrants must not have their registrations
> cancelled nor should theybe denied the opportunity to
> renew their names or transfer them to others.
>
> · Must not attempt to impose any new prior
> restrictions on people or organizations attempting to
> register names
>
> · Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
> any new dispute initiation procedures that could
> result in the cancellation of domain delegations. The
> UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
>
> 2c. Support for noncommercial participants
> Applicants should propose methods of supporting and
> assisting non-commercial participants in the ICANN
> process.
>
> 2d. Registrars
> All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to
> register names in .org. However, applicants are
> encouraged to propose methods of managing the
> relationship between the registry and registrars that
> encourage differentiation of the domain.
>
> 2e. Definition of marketing practices
> Applicants should propose specific marketing policies
> and practices designed to differentiate the domain,
> promote and attract registrations from the defined
> community, and minimize defensive and duplicative
> registrations.
>
> 3. The Verisign endowment
>
> In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-
> profit organizations to compete for award of the .org
> sponsorship agreement, the Board should
> · require no more than the equivalent of USD$100,000
> in demonstrated financial resources from applicants,
> and
> · fund from the endowment to be provided by Verisign
> the costs of conducting the application evaluation and
> selection process, and
> · upon signing of a sponsorship agreement with ICANN,
> the selected non-profit organization will receive an
> immediate donation of USD $500,000 from the endowment
> to defray its startup and initial operating costs, and
> another USD $2 million after it becomes operational to
> support publicity and promotional activities required
> to differentiate the domain.
>
> 4. The Registry Operator
>
> Any entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization to
> operate the .org registry must fuction efficiently
> and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality
> of service for all .org users worldwide, including a
> commitment to making registration, assistance and
> other services available in different time zones and
> different languages. The price of registration
> proposed by the new entity should be as low as
> feasible consistent with the maintenance of good
> quality service.
>
> 5. ICANN Policies
>
> As an unsponsored domain, .org TLD administration must
> adhere to policies defined through ICANN processes,
> such as policies regarding registrar accreditation,
> shared registry access, the uniform dispute resolution
> policy, and access to registration contact data via
> WHOIS.
>
> 6. Follow up
>
> ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-
> profit organizations to assume responsibility for
> operation of the .org registry with a deadline no
> later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation,
> selection and agreement process may be completed well
> in advance of the 31 December expiration of the
> current agreement with Verisign.
>
> ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names
> Council to review the request for proposals (RFP)
> prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public
> dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in
> consultation with the Task Force to ensure compliance
> with the policy. There will be only one review cycle.
> Application fees should be as low as possible
> consistent with the objective of discouraging
> frivolous applications.
>
>
>
>
>
>