Re: Fw: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted

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

Thanks for forwarding these comments, 
Ken. Here are my responses. Both you and
your constituency need to keep in mind
that this process has been underway for 
about six months now, and the ONLY thing
we are trying to do now is re-formulated
the TF's original report into a contractual
form (sponsored, unsponsored, etc.)
acceptable to Louis Touton. 

So the main thing we need to know from you,
Ken, is which contractual form your 
constituency will support.

>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 12/26/01 12:06 > 1. Characteristics of the Organization -- There
> should not be a presumption of the registry being a 
> non-profit.

I'm afraid that this point is fairly well-settled.
B&C, NCDNHC, gTLD (I think), GA and IPCC have all 
strongly supported a non-profit model. Keep in mind,
however, that the delegee of newORG can contract 
(and from what I have seen of many applicants, 
probably will contract) with a for-profit registry
for operational functions.

> 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. [snip] 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.


Nothing at all "dangerous" here. By "outlet for
noncommercial expression" we simply mean that
no one who wants to use an .org name as a billboard
for noncomercial expression should be excluded. 
And in draft you reviewed, newORG will NOT be able
to eject or refuse registration topeople for not being "noncommercial enough." So there is absolutely
no danger here.

> 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.

That is a very firm point of consensus in the current
draft.


> 2d.  Registrars - .org registry should be required 
> to abide by the equal access, SLA, and code of 
> conduct requirements in place today.

That will be much easier to do under the unsponsored,
unrestricted model. 

> Nor is it wise to rely wholly on the VRSN $5mm to 
> make this happen, as this would lead to control by 
> VRSN.

VRSN will have no control over the disbursement
of the $5 million.