[registrars] Fw: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report
fellow registrars...
attached is a letter from ICANN President Stuart Lynn
regarding the "dot org" re-delegation..
as you can see here, Stuart reflects concerns I have
previously raised to the "dot-org" taskforce regarding protections for existing
registrants
and again re-affirms the concept of "grandfather rights"
I have been advocating for on behalf of the
Registrars and our existing "dot org" customers.
I previous requested that we put together a "workforce"
to provide additional input into the committee. I recognize that we all
have been somewhat "distracted" by the current elections
but... This request needs to be expedited in light
of Dr. Lynn's comments here.
I would hope that this committee would reflect
a strong "global" registrar input and am
recommending that we setup a conference call the week after Christmas to
facilitate development of a broader-based
registrar response to ICANNs request for modifications to
the original proposal.
I have received comments and expressions of interest
from some registrars like myself out there with a "strong interest"
in this area (such as Bryan Evans) and would hope that they might consider
serving on this committee.
As I indicated in my earlier correspondence, this committee
will help in the future to focus "registrar" input into the development of the
RFP for the re-delegation which will help to insure the Registrars and our
current "dot org" customers receive fair & equitable treatment and
are not disadvantaged in any way in this re-delegation
process.
i would again like to offer best wishes to you all (and your
families) for a happy holiday season and continued good health
ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: M. Stuart Lynn
To: Milton
Mueller
Cc: council@dnso.org ; Louis Touton
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:26 AM
Subject: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report I have been following with interest the deliberations on the report of the .org Task Force of the Names Council, in particular the recommendation that the new structure be sponsored yet unrestricted. I have a friendly suggestion to make that may be helpful to the Task Force's and the Names Council's deliberations. Please feel free to share this note with the Task Force. Louis Touton has argued -- to my mind persuasively -- that there is an inherent conflict between the two terms, "sponsored" and "unrestricted". He points out that, by definition, being sponsored already implies being restricted (although one can be restricted without necessarily being sponsored, just like .biz or .name). In this note, I would go further to suggest that the inherent objectives of the .org TF, as I understand them, can in any event quite well be achieved without requiring that the new structure follow the sponsorship model. These objectives can be achieved if the new structure were *unsponsored* and unrestricted, but with *limitations* contractually established that constrain its marketing (and possibly other) practices. This could be coupled with some advisory structure to some ICANN-established body that would monitor the implementation of those limitations. The .org TF report contains some interesting and important concepts. I believe the approach I am suggesting here preserves these concepts without imposing extra demands (like sponsorship) that it seems to me would make it unworkable. Let me explain further. As I see it, the main reason the .org TF advocates a sponsored regime is to ensure that the new structure ensures marketing (and possibly other) practices that follow certain constraints -- mainly to encourage that new registrant applications are predominantly from not-for-profit kinds of organizations and that new registrants from, say, the commercial sector are discouraged. The TF does not wish -- and indeed suggests it does not know how -- to impose absolute requirements that a *new* registrant be not-for-profit (no one seems to disagree that all *existing* registrants, whether or not they are not-for-profit, should be grandparented in). But as Louis demonstrates, this is not what sponsorship is about. Sponsorship includes precisely the notion that registrants are limited to a well-defined community as described in the sponsoring organization's charter, and that the activities of the sponsoring organization reflect the will of that entire community. As I see it, the .org TF proposal -- even as modified -- does not come close to meeting that test. By definition, one cannot have a sponsoring organization where anyone can be a registrant but where certain registrants are excluded from the community that defines the directions of the sponsoring organization. However, what I suggest in the third paragraph above avoids this conflict. There is clearly no conflict between unsponsored and unrestricted. The regime was designed that way. And there is no conflict in establishing requirements/guidelines for marketing practices permitted by and through the registry and as such by participating registrars. It is important, since the manner in which these marketing practices are guided affects the entire (unrestricted) community of registrants/potential registrants, that the guidance be done in a way that is accountable to the entire Internet community, in other words through exercise of the representative responsibility by ICANN rather than through some delegation of that authority to a less-broadly-representative group. Indeed, that is already done in the VeriSign agreements. In fact, limitations are already inherent in every agreement (perhaps almost by definition). Please note: I am not opining here as to whether or not it is a good idea to restrict marketing practices (although I do believe that the .org TF gives good reasons why, in this case, they believe it makes sense), only that the mechanism already exists for that to happen without having to resort to the notion of a sponsored structure. Give the concept a name, if you wish. Call it unsponsored and unrestricted, but "limited". Personally, I do not think this is a good idea because too many names only cause more confusion about definitions. And, as mentioned above, all agreements contain limitations. The only question is what kinds of limitations. And then there is the question about how such limitations should be monitored and enforced. One way is to leave this to the ICANN staff. Ultimately in the extreme, if it comes to legal sanctions, perhaps the ICANN staff do have to be involved. Bit it would be much more desirable to leave as much as possible of all other work to the organization responsible for .org. Legal sanctions are way along the road of monitoring, discussing, negotiating, refining, persuading etc. Much of this work can be done by an advisory board or committee of people drawn from the community of people intended, in the .org TF proposal, to form the sponsors. This board or committee could, for example, monitor marketing practices being followed, advise the responsible organization as to whether these practices are following the limitations imposed by the agreements, and recommend what changes need to be made to ensure conformance. This board or committee would need to be staffed by people appointed by the responsible organization. I would be interested in knowing which of the .org TF's objectives are not met by the overall arrangement I am proposing. It is important, it seems to me, to clearly articulate the objectives, and then find the means to achieve those objectives, rather than allowing the means to become an end or objective in themselves. Nothing in the above argues as to whether or not it is the right idea to allow other than not-for-profits to register in .org in the future (again, while grandparenting all existing registrants). If the overall objective of the .org TF is to ensure a sponsored structure above all other objectives (in other words, if that is a objective in itself, not a means towards some other objective), then some such restriction on registrants would seem to be be required. Whether or not some such restriction is desirable can be argued separately by the community. The .org TF report concludes -- and I personally believe with some justification (although I am not totally persuaded) -- that it would be difficult if not impossible to define such a charter that limits future registrants to not-for-profits, one that works internationally in an unambiguous manner. Difficult, yes, but I am not convinced this would be impossible. If the community felt that it truly wanted to see a sponsored organization with a charter limiting future registrants to not-for-profits (or that such a limit were a desirable objective in its own right), I believe that willing minds can work out a suitable and workable way of defining such registrants to ensure that "leakage" would at worst be very minimal. But consideration of the issue of whether or not to limit future registrants to not-for-profits is not the main thrust of this document -- that is a separate question. I hope the above may be helpful to you as you consider the next steps. With regards Stuart -- __________________ Stuart Lynn President and CEO ICANN 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: 310-823-9358 Fax: 310-823-8649 Email: lynn@icann.org
|