[nc-org] Re: Any S,R advocates?

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> This is the final, wrap-up phase of the Task Force, in which we
> are fitting our earlier consensus into either the U,U or S,R
> framework imposed on us by ICANN mgmt. We have about one week left
> before a teleconference.
> ...
> You, Cary, have not indicated a position or made any specific
> proposals.

Although I am not sure to what avail, I have repeatedly stated that
I think we are asking for unnecessary difficulty by insisting on
placing the newORG organizational model in the SU,SR,UU,UR
nomenclatural matrix. I perceive myself to be taking a clear stance
here, whether or not everyone agrees with my viewpoint.

During the course of the TF discussion it has become clear to me
that both the terminological and conceptual frameworks for gTLDs
require more than a four-term vocabulary. Stuart Lynn labelled one
further such notion in a communication that I'm not sure was posted
on the TF list. (I'll forward a copy immediately after I send this
off, just in case.):

"These objectives can be achieved if the new structure were
*unsponsored* and unrestricted, but with *limitations* contractually
established that constrain its marketing (and possibly other)
practices."

A further such notion is that of "enforcement", as it might or might
not be applied to numerous aspects of newORG policy and marketing
practice. Given that the terms "sponsored", "unsponsored",
"restricted" and "enforcement" are so heavily loaded, perhaps we
should use Stuart's broader "limitations". It may well be that a
part of the TF mandate was to provide recommendations using the
terms that I am suggesting we may wish to avoid. I think that we can
manage our way through this without abdicating our responsibility.
One possibility would be to reword the beginning of our proposal as
follows:

"NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE

The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the
worldwide community of organizations, groups, and individuals
engaged in noncommercial communication via the Internet.
Responsibility for .org administration should be delegated to a
non-profit organization that has widespread support from and acts on
behalf of that community.

The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in
the gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
policies developed below. Some clear statement of administrative and
marketing practices will be necessary but this must not result in an
exclusive boundary being set around the community of eligible
registrants. The manner in which the normative guidelines are
labelled is not a primary consideration but the framework should
include all the points numbered below."

We would then need to adjust 2b:

"2b. No eligibility requirements

Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility
requirements."

In 3, we can change references to the "sponsorship agreement" to the
"TLD contract".

In 4, change "Sponsoring Organization" to "TLD Operator"

In 5, delete "As an unsponsored domain" and start the sentence with,
"The .org administration".


I may have overlooked other references to sponsorship but trust that
all would be amenable to similar adjustment.

> Further abstract debate and raising of new ideas at this point is
> counterproductive - unless you are comfortable with another delay.

No, I am not comfortable with further delay. I'm not sure that I
agree, though, that avoiding it at all costs is a more useful
objective than ensuring that the TF report exerts the greatest
possible influence on the establishment of newORG.

Happy New Year to the whole weary lot of us !-)

/Cary