<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[nc-org] Draft for Names Council - v 5.3
This draft reflects a few detail changes
requested mostly by the registrar constituency.
* References to "accredited registrars" in Sec. 5
* Put in more specific statements about protocols
and performance specs in Sec 4
* Minor language modification in Section 1c
There is one other possible change that is
"more than a detail" I will send out in the
next message. If it proves to be uncontroversial
we can add it, if not, it will have to be confined
to the supplemental reports of constituencies.
Once that is dealt with, we should be able to
send this report to the full NC by Thursday Jan 10.
==========
NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
v 5.3 (January 8, 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 to
Administer .org
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 polic 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 either directly participate in
the selection of officers, or the election of policy-
making council members, or both. 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 to Administer .org
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
practice 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 e 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 to ICANN-accredited
registrars in different time zones and different
languages. The ".org" registry should match or improve
on the performance specifications of the
current ".org" registry. The registry fee charged to
accredited registrars should be as low as feasible
consistent with the maintenance of good quality
service. The registry-registrar protocol should either
remain the same as the current ".org" registry, or it
should match the new international standard for
registry-registrar protocols being developed in the
Internet Engineering Task Force.
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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|