[nc-org] Responses to the Roberts Draft

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

My initial reference to this text on the TF list triggered a flurry
of off-list communications. Two of the contributions made by Mike
during its course are likely enough to be relevant to our current
deliberations that I am forwarding them here in digest. Mike posted
a third communication in this sequence directly to the list on
Dec. 19.

 ---------

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 13:28:10 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>

I printed up and distributed to at least 100 people in Marina del
Rey a little card with the dot-org Alliance principles on it.  They
are:

Restore dot-org to its original non-commercial use

Manage dot-org through a non-profit foundation

Provide dot-org registration through accredited registrars

Protect registration of all existing dot-org name holders

I have been recruiting members for the Alliance with the intention,
if there is sufficient interest, of forming a group to make an
application to manage dot-org based on these principles and on the
policies which the Board adopts following its receipt of the NC
recommendations.

...

I admire your tenacity in having moved your group as far as you have
on a tough subject.  I don't think the differences remaining are a
serious obstacle, although I surely hope we can deep six this notion
of an unsponsored registry and move forward as quickly as possible.

Regards,

- Mike

  ----------

Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 15:48:35 -0800
From: Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us>

> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> That leads to your last comment, (quoted below). I'm afraid that
> the issue of sponsored v unsponsored is very much open, and
> indeed this is precisely the quandary that Louis' intervention
> has pushed us into. The "sponsored unrestricted" concept was
> able to satisfy everyone; if that avenue is not available all
> the constituencies need to recalibrate their assessments.
>
>>>>  Mike Roberts <mmr@darwin.ptvy.ca.us> 12/18/01 04:28PM >>>
>

> I don't think the differences remaining are a serious obstacle,
> although I surely hope we can deep six this notion of an
> unsponsored registry and move forward as quickly as possible.


Milton - In the interests of constructive debate, let me make some
comments on this point.  I think that all the players here have
basically the right goal in sight and want to do the right thing, so
let's find a way to do that and not get caught up in an excessive
set of legalisms.  Having worked with Louis every day for nearly
three years, I know that he wants to do the right thing as much as
you and I and others do.  If he is convinced that we are all
(including the NC and the Board) on the same page as a matter of
principle and policy, he'll find the right words in the registry
agreement.

(1) the goal is " that the .org registry should be operated by and
on behalf of the worldwide community of non-profit and
non-commercial organizations and that this should be a guiding
principle of the new registry agreement" as stated in my draft
resolution.  The kind of stewardship implied by this statement
cannot be achieved without a registry manager organization that
makes it happen.  You cannot attract good people to the Board of
such an organization unless you give them the responsibility (thru a
TLD agreement with ICANN), the authority (thru open process), and
the resources (thru registry fees).  QED, a sponsoring organization
is sine qua non.

(2) the alleged pothole with sponsorship is how to articulate and
administer the registration rules which give substance to the
mission of operating by and on behalf of the non-profit and
non-commercial holders of dot-org domain names.  As is the case with
other aspects of ICANN's mission, we are not seeking perfection, we
are looking for working code and rough consensus.

In the TF report, reference is made to marketing information which
clearly states what kind of registrations the dot-org registry is
intended for.  While I don't disagree with this, from a procedural
point of view, it would be better to have this described in an NC
recommendation as the intended scope of registration rules.  Which
leads to the Board putting them into the criteria for evaluation of
applications which makes the competing sponsoring organizations
speak to how they will be implemented, etc.

I think almost all the commenters I have seen are onboard up to this
point.  Where we currently are at sixes and sevens is over what
happens if someone registers who doesn't meet the registration
rules.  This in turn raises questions of how does this fact become
disclosed and after that what remedial action is taken?  There are
several possible answers, which I preface by the comment that there
are few incentives for misbehavior in the first place.  With a clear
mission stmt embodied in the registry agreement and in the bylaws of
the sponsoring organization and in the registration rules, what's in
it for mischief makers?  Previously, you might have said defensive
registration, or a search for just the right name.  But there are
now several unsponsored, unrestricted registries, so whatever
currency this particular assertion had is now considerably diluted.

(i) Adopt a passive, not active, system of checking on registrant
compliance with the registration rules. If your registration is
found to be in violation of the registration rules, it is suspended
and cancelled.  It is not necessary that this be an active system,
it can be a passive system where penalties are assessed if you get
caught.  We have all kinds of examples of that in legal systems
already.  Traffic laws.  Environmental permits.  Marriage licenses.
In these situations, the entity entering into the agreement attests
that they have read and understand all the rules and will abide by
them.  The registration agreement for a dot-org name can be worded
to completely hold the registrar and the registry harmless from
litigation in the event that the registrant submitted false
information.

(ii) in the ambiguous cases, and no immediate agreement on remedy,
provide that the dispute goes to arbitration.  You've essentially
already mentioned this re UDRP revisions, etc.

(iii) leave the fine grain details to the sponsoring registry
organization and its registrars.  We don't go into exquisite detail
in other registry agreements, and I don't believe there is a
compelling reason to do it here.

- Mike