<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Fw: re: "dot. org"
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 2:08 PM
Subject: Re: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report
Ken:
I agree this is an important
issue for the constituency, and I'd like to participate in any working
group that is formed.
Scott Hemphill
Domain Bank
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:32
AM
Subject: 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 -----
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 1:26 AM
Subject: [council] Suggestion re .org TF report
Dear Milton:
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|