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

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

you may feel that grant successfully rebutted my arguement milton but i
cannot agree with you here.

this clause attempts  create a scenario whereby an entity who applies for
management of this tld MUST agree to submit itself to selection of the
entity's management by the registrants.

i cannot agree with this concept and i cannot  believe that the registrars
will either.

As i stated in the meeting, i do not believe that the ICANN board will
either.

you would be significantly limiting the number of qualified proposing
entities if you required that each proposing entity must agree as part of
the contract to have its management appointed & subsequently re-elected by
the registrants in the future.

that it totally impractical and makes no sense at all.

ken stubbs


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <kstubbs@digitel.net>; <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:24 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference


> Now here I know you're incorrect. Grant dissembled your
> argument rather thoroughly, noting that ICANN deals with
> organizations, not with people. There was absolutely no
> one who expressed support for the notion that .org
> registrants should not elect officers.
>
> Indeed, I am puzzled because it seems contrary to
> your other point, which is that .org registrants who are
> commercial should not be excluded from representation
> in the governance process. How is it that you insist
> on full representation in one case and then insist that
> the same people cannot be trusted to play a direct
> role in the governance of the organization?
>
> >>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 01/03/02 06:21PM >>>
> 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.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>