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

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

grant and all...
thanks for stepping in here grant .....

please see my comments below


> Suggestion: So as to not introduce confusion and tension regarding
existing
> .org registrants, lets just specify that the applicant need be a
> noncommercial/not for profit. => Strike out "....that is controlled by
> noncommercial .org registrants".

************  i personally would feel comfortable with this
********************

>
> 2. Section 1c: Who gets to participate in ongoing governance
> Milton has correctly made the change to now just refer to "...that provide
> all .org registrants with the opportunity...."
> This ensures that existing "non-noncommercial" registrants are not
> discriminated against.

*****************ok here as well*********************

>
> 3. Section 1c: Who gets to select officers
> Again I agree with Milton that while you, Ken, did raise the issue and
> concern as to election of officers (note: I interpret that as "board" not
> management) this is a detail that should not impact on the obligations and
> commitment of the ORGANISATION to ICANN and the ICANN community.
> Having said that, I suggest that we don't need to specify this level of
> detail (ie. election of officers) in noting the wish to provide the
> community of all .org registrants with the opportunity to contribute to
the
> governance policy of their domain.
> Another option might be that the officers be elected by members of the
> organisation running the domain and that membership of the organisation is
> open to all .org registrants. <= I am NOT suggesting this as an
alternative
> but rather to note that there are many ways for the organisation to
> structure itself and its governance processes to involve the .or
> registrants.
> Let us not specify to this detail but rather to note the wish to have the
> opportunity for .org registrants to participate and have the applicants
lay
> out how they would deliver this.
> Suggestion: "Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org
> TLD that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
> participate in the policy making affecting .org."


**************i will have to discuss this with the members of the registrar
group i am consulting with before i can comment back on this
item**********************



*************other comments to come re: balance of document*****************

regards

ken




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:kstubbs@digitel.net]
> Sent: Friday, 04 January, 2002 1:31 p.m.
> To: nc-org@dnso.org; Milton Mueller
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
>
>
> your interpretation of governance is different than mine here.
>
> i believe that creation of the policies under which the registry
management
> operates are the principle governance function which registrants need to
> have significant input & control over.
>
> it is the function of the management of the entity to operate in
conformance
> to these policies and as long as the entity does so then there is no
reason
> for the beneficiaries of the service to question management. i am quite
> certain that the RFP & subsequent contract process, will establish
> appropriate SLA's and measurements to ascertain compliance.
>
> it would seem to me that the last thing we would want to do is to
hamstring
> the RFP process by putting arbitrary restrictions like this proposed
> "election clause". this would only severly discourage entities from
> submitting proposals.
>
> ken
>
> > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>