[registrars] Revised ".org" draft - reflecting taskforce teleconference

[Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>]

Hello Ken,

Here are some suggested changes.


> >
> > 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.

This seems a bit vague.  The issue is the "definition" of officers.
It is normal to participate via election of the Board of a company (by
shareholders, or members of the non-profit organisation).  The Board then
appoints the staff.  This is the case for ICANN as well as auDA (the
Australian equivalent).

Perhaps the first sentence should read:

"Applicants should propose governance structures for the 
.org TLD that
provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly 
participate in
the selection of members of the governing Board and/or policy-making
council."

I would assume assume - as for ICANN and auDA that an initial Board would be
established - that is representative of the ".org" community as part of the
proposal, and that elections would be held for members of the Board e.g 12
months (for half the Board) and 24 months for the other half of the Board.


> >
> > 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.

I recommend the following change:
"The price of registration proposed by the new
entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the 
maintenance of an equivalent or better level of performance to the current
".org" registry.
Protocols used by the new registry should be equivalent to the current
".org" registry, or meet the new IETF standards for registry-registrar
protocols.  The new registry should minimise transitional expenses for
registrars".


Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
>