[nc-org] Draft report for teleconference

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

TF members:
This is the draft we will use as the starting
point for our discussion January 3rd. I have
taken my draft of Dec. 23rd and modified it to
incorporate the changes proposed by Cary and
by the Melbourne IT NC representative. 
Please look it over carefully. 
(Note: the comments bracketed by < > in Sec. 1 are a
question I would like answered, not part of the
report)

=========================================
NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
v 5.1

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 divestiture. 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 labeled is not a primary consideration but the framework should include all the points numbered below.

<Question: are we specifically encouraging applicants who follow all the policies below to label themselves as sponsored/unsponsored, etc.(the Fausett proposal)? If so, a statement to that effect should go in here.>

1. Characteristics of the Organization

Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to a non-profit organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants and non-commercial organizations. We recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have homogeneous views about policy and mangement, and that no single organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation from a significant number of international noncommercial registrants and organizations. The organization's policies and practices should strive to be responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.

Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized non-profit corporations, as that is defined in the legal jurisdiction in which the organization is incorporated. The articles of incorporation and bylaws should restrict the activities of the corporation to the non-profit management and operation of the .org top level domain name registry. Subcontracting of operational functions to for-profit providers is permitted.

Applicants should propose governance structures that provide noncommercial .org registrants with the opportunity to directly participate in the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members. The bylaws should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and participatory process by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and revised in a manner which reflects the interests of .org domain name holders and is consistent with the terms of its registry agreement with ICANN.

2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants

2a. Definition of the .org community
Each applicant organization should include in its application a definition of the relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are intended, detailing the types of registrants who constitute the target market for .org, and proposing marketing and branding practices oriented toward that community. 

The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than formal non-profit organizations. It must also include individuals and groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and information exchange, unincorporated cultural, eucational and political organizations, and business partnerships with non-profits and community groups for social initiatives.

2b. No eligibility requirements
Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility
requirements. With a definition of the served community and appropriate marketing practices in place, the organization and the registrars should rely entirely on end-user choice to determine who registers in .org.

Specifically, applicants:
· 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.

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

· Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, any new dispute initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.

2c. Support for noncommercial participants
Applicants should propose methods of supporting and assisting non-commercial participants in the ICANN process. 

2d. Registrars
All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names in .org. However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage differentiation of the domain.

2e. Definition of marketing practices
Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and practices designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract registrations from the defined community, and minimize defensive and duplicative registrations. 

3. The Verisign endowment

3a. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in demonstrated financial resources from applicants.

3b. There should be a defined budge to be spent on conducting the application evaluation. Funds from the endowment to be provided by Verisign can be used to cover the costs of conducting the application evaluation and selection process, subject to the allocations in 3c below. Any funds unused for the selection process should be turned over to the new .org administrator or used to support noncommercial participation in ICANN processes.

3c. Upon signing of a agreement with ICANN, the selected non-profit organization will receive an immediate donation of USD $500,000 from the endowment to defray its startup and initial operating costs, and another USD $3 million after it becomes operational to support publicity and promotional activities required to differentiate the domain.

4. The Registry Operator

Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry must function efficiently and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality of service for all .org users worldwide, including a commitment to making registration, assistance and other services available in different time zones and different languages. The price of registration proposed by the new entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the maintenance of good quality service. 

Applicants should meet the current performance specifications from the Verisign .org agreement. The new .org registry should either use the existing .org registry/registrar protocol (RRP), or be compliant with the EPP protocol of the IETF "provreg" working group.

5. ICANN Policies

The .org 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. 

6. Follow up

ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit organizations to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a deadline no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and agreement process may be ompleted well in advance of the 31 December expiration of the current agreement with Verisign.

ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names Council to review the request for proposals (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation with the Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. There will be only one review cycle. Application fees should be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging frivolous applications.