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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

On Fri, 28 Dec 2001, at 20:05 [=GMT-0500], Ken Stubbs wrote:

> my personal opinion here ....
> 
> this proposed  "dual registrars approach" is far to difficult to administer
> and leaves too many potential conflicts open.
> 
> for example"
> 
> 1. who administers mktg policies

The SO.

> 2. who decides that registrar is in violation of "guidelines"

The SO, or some body under it.

> this opens up a "huge can of worms" here and becomes far too convoluted and,
> frankly, a potential  "administrative nightmare"

Maybe for registrars this is not what they are dreaming of. It is not
impossible, I think, to deal with complaints about websites that
violate the marketing policy. The SO does not have to monitor all
websites. Competiting registrars/resellers will complain about each
other to the SO. I know this from the Tucows/OpenSRS resellers list in
re using the ICANN logo on websites of resellers. Worked quite well as
far as I know. If a reseller doesn't listen, well, the end. Basically
it would mean, I guess, but IANAL, that all registrars enter into new
contracts for new registrations (without affecting their existing
registrations), which clearly contain the obligations and the
consequences of violating them.

> not at all practical....

Extra work, yes.

M

> 
> ken stubbs
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@schneiders.org>
> To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> Cc: <nc-org@dnso.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 5:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] What a S,R proposal must do
> 
> 
> > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> 
>