Re: [nc-org] What a S,R proposal must do

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

Basically the problem comes from the fact that some 'stakeholders' do
not accept that registrars can be 'blackholed'. I think I mentioned
this topic sometime back in a message to this list (yes let's keep all
messages etc. here, I cannot read 5 lists at this time of the year
either). We could agree on the following:

1. Registrars can do _existing_ (grandfathered) registrations forever.

2. If they go against the marketing policy, they lose the right to do
_new_ registrations.

I think this is quite clear. The SO will have to define how they
intend to implement two in a concrete way.

M

On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, at 21:51 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:

> A S,R (sponsored, restricted) 
> proposal must meet the following criteria:
> 
> A. Must provide guidance as to what kind of a 
> Sponsoring Organization (SO) we want. (Not difficult)
> 
> B. Must provide guidance as to how the affected
> community is defined by, and represented in, the SO
> (not difficult)
> 
> C. Must delegate authority to the SO to set policy IN 
> PLACE OF ICANN policy in more than one of the 
> following areas:
> 
> C1. eligibility restrictions or other naming 
> conventions
> C2. qualification of registrars
> C3. dispute resolution (CEDRP)
> C4. WHOIS
> 
> (not impossible, but raises many new issues
> we haven't discussed. Also, whatever delegation
> occurs must be consistent with the desire of 
> some constituencies to make .org conform to 
> standard UDRP and WHOIS policies)
> 
> D. Must provide clear guidance as to how to handle
> the discrimination that must occur between new
> and "grandfathered" registrations (difficult and new)
> 
> E. Must be consistent with the TF's original agreement 
> that .org would remain open and that it would be
> differentiated primarily through marketing and
> end user selection. (very difficult)
> 
> I attempted this, but the more I tried to do it the 
> more convinced I became of the simplicity and wisdom of
> the U,U model. I am not going to ruin any more of
> my holiday season on that task. Anyone else is
> welcome to try. 
> 
> NOW, here's an important part of this message:
> 
> If we are to consider the S,R model at all, we need
> a concrete proposal, based on the original TF report,
> that meets the above criteria put before this Task
> Force (not somewhere else) by JANUARY 1ST. 
> 
> I must insist on that deadline, otherwise members will
> not have a chance to thoroughly read and discuss
> it in time for the teleconference.
>  
>