Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

i also expressed concern about the officers of the organization being
elected by the registrants and i felt that there was support for this
position milton.

i do not believe that this makes any sense and i thought that this part was
assented to by other conference participants. i do feel that registrants
should have strong input into policy development but letting the registrants
elect officers of the managing entity is unrealistic and unworkable.

i know that this point was elaborated on numerous times during the teleconf.

ken stubbs



----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>; <nc-org@dnso.org>
Cc: <shemphill@domainbank.net>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>;
<ebroitman@register.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:07 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference


> Hi, Ken:
> No, the agreement was that the "initial delegation" would be
> to an organization controlled by noncommercial org registrants,
> (which meets desires of NCDNHC, B&C, and I think others)
> but pursuant to your requests, ongoing governance arrangements
> (paragraph 1c) were opened up to ALL org registrants.
>
> So in deciding who to give .org to, ICANN will seek an
> organization that is representative of noncommercials in its
> initial composition, but the ongoing governance arrangements
> are completely open to any .org registrant. So that, aside
> from the start-up, any .org registrant can elect board
> members, run for office, etc.
>
> That was the agreement, I thought it addressed both of
> our concerns.
>
> >>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 01/03/02 06:03PM >>>
> hello all......
>
> it was my inderstanding that the paragraph #1 should read " . The initial
> delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit organization that is
> controlled by ".org"  registrants.
>
> it currently reads " . The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to
a
> non-profit organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org
> registrants. "
>
> before i left the call it was my understanding that the wording regarding
> the type of "org" registrants was to be consistant for para #1a & #1c.
> paragraph  1c reads "org" registrants but  paragraph  1a reads
> "non-commercial org registrants"
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:48 PM
> Subject: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
>
>
> >
> > NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> > v 5.2 (January 4, 2002)
> >
> > 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 below.
> >
> > 1. Characteristics of the Organization
> >
> > 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
> recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about
> policy and management, 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 .org registrants. 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.
> >
> > 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized
> non-profit entities (understood to include corporations, associations,
> partnerships or cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal
> jurisdiction in which the organization is established). Subcontracting of
> operational functions to for-profit providers is permitted.
> >
> > 1c. Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD
that
> provide all .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.
> >
> > 1d. 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.
> >
> > 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
> simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include individuals
and
> groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and information
> exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational 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, or propose 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. Surplus funds
> > Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.
Use
> of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org registry
> operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is
> adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some
relationship
> to Internet use, administration and policy. For example, applicants are
> encouraged to propose methods of supporting and assisting non-commercial
> participants in the ICANN process. Uses intended only to subsidize other
> activities of the organization or its subsidiaries, activities that are
not
> subject to oversight and management by the .org governance arrangements,
> should not be considered.
> >
> > 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
> > Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the
transition,
> and new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that
> objective. 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
> >
> > Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5
> million endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they
> propose to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.
> >
> > 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. Protocols used by the new registry should minimize
> transitional expenses for registrars.
> >
> > 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 completed 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. Application fees should
be
> as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging frivolous
> applications.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>