Re: [nc-org] Unsponsored, Unrestricted

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

Cary:
At this point, we need specific proposals and expressions of support (opposition) for a specific 
model or a specific proposal. If you don't support a 
proposal on the table, draft one you do support.

>>> ck@nic.museum 12/23/01 10:52 AM >>>
> 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.

They can't be easily mapped into more than one. 
The only "easy" way to do it is "unsponsored, unrestricted." If you think it is easy to translate 
the original report into another format, do it! 
I'd be happy to see the results and happy to let
someone else do some work for a change.

> 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. 

I don't know what I've done to deserve the suspicion
contained in that statement. As TF Chair it's my
responsibility to take the initiative to keep the
process moving. The draft I prepared was submitted
to the rest of you for approval. What else can I do -
read your minds? If you don't support it, say so. If 
you do support it, say so. If you want to amend specific parts of it, say so. 

At this late stage, you simply need to express support, opposition, propose specific amendments, or 
submit alternative proposals. We don't have time for 
much else.

And let me make it clear what my incentives are.
Any fool knows that it would be utterly
futile for me personally to declare a "consensus"
on this list and go into a NC meeting withut a
real one. No one would be fooled. More delay would 
ensue, and that would be a disaster. My only desire
is to get us back on track and strongly unified 
so that the next NC meeting ratifies a policy. 

As I said in another message, as long as we take the 
original consensus as a starting point we are arguing 
about a residual 5% difference in policy, so it should not be difficult. But we do need to get with 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.

Yes, of course. so do you support the draft or not? 
If not, what needs to be changed? 

> 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 seems to contradict your earlier suggestion
that we should follow Brett Fausett's proposal.

> 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: [snip]

> 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.

Cary, your perception is incorrect.  
The statement of mine you quite contains no "shift
in perception" at all. It is a statement that if we
are to be forced out of the "sponsored, unrestricted"
mold we agreed on, then it is my opinion that 
the best way to reflect the original policy
objectives is via "unsponsored, unrestricted."

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

> > The onsensus 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. 

To repeat:
I did not assert that a "consensus shift" had 
occurred. I asserted that the ORIGINAL consensus
on policy objectives would fit easier into a U,U
model than a S.R model. And that has also been 
based on consultations with three distinct
constituencies. 

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

All that matters is whether you support them or not.
You say below that you think they are "pretty good."
The only way to find out whether they are "specimen
sentiments of the TF" is to post them and get 
reaction. We now have yours. Who's next?

> 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. 

No, it does not. You may have misunderstood
the point of that sentence. Essentially, the Roberts
sentence calls for the purpose of the corporation
to be focused on managing .org, (as opposed to, e.g.,
ending world hunger or mediating disputes in 
Chechnya). A sensible idea, no? But that has
nothing to do with restricting registration
in the .org domain. When we talk about "unrestricted"
we are talking about "unrestricted eligibility for
registration."

--MM