Re: [nc-org] Dot Org in 4 layers

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

Milton,

I am happy to see you consider layer's concept helpful.

I am one which thinks that SR is a better approach
that UU for Dot Org, because in UU
you can hardly give any significant role to Layer 1.

The "S" - Layer 1 in my text - seems to plaise to you.

Concerning "R" - all texts you wrote about the
main purpose of Dot Org qualify IMO as a Charter.
In this Charter we may write that Dot Org should be 
unrestricted, and that Layer 1 is custodianship of 
that Charter.
By doing so we fit into SR scheme.

I attach a proposal for Charter (which is plenty of 
copy/paste from your texts).

Do we agree if Layer 2 shall be a non-profit organization ?

Elisabeth
NB. 4 Layers are in:
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-org/Arc00/msg00311.html
--
Charter for registration of domain names under Dot Org.

0. Introduction

The .org TLD 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 Dot Org Entity.

The new Dot Org Entity will provide for a forum
and a process to maintain or adapt over time the Charter 
for registration of domain names under .org TLD. 

The Initial Policy Guidelines are:

1. Unrestricted eligibility

The .org will remain an unrestricted TLD.

With a definition of the served community the new
Registry Operator and the Registrars should rely
entirely on end-user choice to determine who registers
in .org.

Specifically, the new Dot Org Entity:
   a. Must not propose to evict existing registrants who
      do not conform to its target community. Current
      registrants must not have their registrations
      cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to
      renew their names or transfer them to others.

   b. Must not attempt to impose any new prior
      restrictions on people or organizations attempting to
      register names.

2. General rules developped and maintained within ICANN frame

As an unrestricted domain, .org TLD administration must
adhere to policies defined through ICANN processes,
such as policies regarding registrar accreditation,
shared registry access, the uniform dispute resolution
policy, and access to registration contact data via
WHOIS.

Specifically the Dot org applicants (old and new ones alike) 
will continue to be subject to :
   a. the dispute procedures provided by UDRP
   b. the obligation to provide and maintain the correct
      information to the WHOIS database

--

> From mueller@syr.edu Fri Dec 28 02:46 MET 2001
> Message-Id: <sc2b88ec.015@gwia201.syr.edu>
> Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 20:47:07 -0500
> From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>, <nc-org@dnso.org>
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] Dot Org in 4 layers
> 
> Elisabeth:
> 
> It is very useful to utilize the layer concept
> in discussing the proposals. It helps us to 
> distinguish between different types of issues.
> 
> For example, I think we are agreed that in Layer
> 1 we are looking for a non-profit organization
> to propose what you call a "charter" and what
> the original report calls for a "definition of
> the served community." We also agree I think that
> the organization should be representative and 
> supportive of noncommercial Internet registrants. 
> 
> However, I am not sure what you mean by this:
> 
> >>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 12/27/01 07:07 AM >>>
> 
> > Because Milton's new summary (UU) 
> > http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-
> > org/Arc00/msg00304.html gives a huge part to
> > registration policy matters, it seems to me 
> > natural that such could be separated into Charter, 
> > and makes us agree.
> 
> First, the U,U, model does not "give a huge part
> to registration policy matters." (If I am
> understanding your meaning correctly.) In U,U 
> there are no restrictions on eligibility to
> register; the charter simply tells the operator
> who to focus its marketing on. Au contraire, it
> is the S,R model that puts a major emphasis on
> registration policy matters.
> 
> Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying.
> --MM
> 
>