<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Fw: [nc-org] Draft report for teleconference
here is some comments from one of our registrars.
i felt it would be a good idea to help give you all some
diverse perspectives & potential reactions as
well
best to you all
ken stubbs
p.s. as you are all most probably aware, elana is emp-loyed by
register.com but she has an excellent insight into the process and her concerns
are, in many ways , supported by other registrars as well
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2002 3:54 PM
Subject: RE: [nc-org] Draft report for teleconference
Ken -
I have just a few comments to add to my previoius ones:
- While
the .org contract presupposes a non-profit to run the .org registry, it does
not require for the non-profit to be "controlled by noncommercial registrants
and organizations." It may well be advisable to have noncommercial
oranizations involved in the registry. However, it is limiting to
require the registry to be "controlled" by them. The .org registry will
require management that brings good business and marketing acumen, as well as
the ability to garner resources, in order to maintain or improve on current
registry services, make it a competitive domain (an ICANN goal), and support
new .org policies.
- In
particular, if the future limited .org focus is to be maintained by marketing
practices, the non-profit that runs .org should have the management and
resources to be able to market effectively.
- Therefore, while noncommercial interests and
expertise should be involved, it should not be mandated that they control the
new registry.
- As to
the registry operator, the Business Constituency has stated
that it believes that an entity independent of VeriSign and free of all
current and future contractual relations with VeriSign should become the dot
org registry. This should be part of the TF report. Also, the RO
needs to show resources and track record to demonstrate that it can provide
adequate registry services.
- As to
relationship with registrars, while the .org registry may have new or
additional requirements (as other sTLDs have), the RFP should state that no
new requirements will be added if they have the effect of disqualifying a
significant number of interested accredited registrars (significant being more
than 30%?). I.e., new whois requirements that require
registrars to run systems different from those run for other TLDs, or
marketing costs that are prohibitive.
Ken -
I hope these points help. Talk to you tomorrow
happy new years !!!
here is the latest draft which reflects changes & input
to date.
please send me your comments on it prior to USA 12:00
EST thursday as milton has scheduled a teleconf for the TF a 14:00
hrs EST thursday.
i would also propose a teleconf thursday at 17:00 USA EST
for the four of us to discuss the documents & go over the thursday TF
teleconf.. this would be approx 09:00 melbourne time.
elana & bruce .. is this time good for you (i already
checked with scott & its good with him) ?
please respond asap ... if it is ok with you two then elana
has offered to facilitate the call..
elana .. please call me at 352 217 3581 or 899 227
1917 today & lets coordinate..
best to all of you
ken
p.s. if any of you need to reach me use the tel #'s
above
(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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|