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

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

Elisabeth:
I am afraid that you are trying to do exactly
what we originally tried to do with the 
"sponsored, unrestricted" concept. That is,
you are defining .org as a "sponsored" domain
but then including in its charter the idea
that it is unrestricted in eligibility.

According to Louis Touton, we can't do that.
That problem is what got us where we are now.
So I would interpret your comments as similar
to Marc's, you support the original S,U
concept. 

However, as I have argued before, we can accomplish the
same policy goals by U,U. We just don't call
the non-profit organization we give it to 
a "sponsor." It is not true that we cannot give
Layer 1 any importance in the U,U model. WE
can tell the organization that wins .org that
it must 

a) define the community it serves,
b) be representative of and responsive to that community
c) support that community

Do you agree that this is the best way to go?

If we make it a "sponsor," then not only do we
have to restrict, but we also cannot simply 
follow all established ICANN policies.

>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr> 12/30/01 10:06 AM >>>


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.