[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: guidance on .org

[Chris Bailey]

At 10:50 19/12/2001 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Chris, I did strongly fight against Touton's
>intervention on the Names Council.

OK. I accept that you and YJ fought on this, but I think you should 
continue to fight for the MDR NCDNHC near unanimous position even if it 
means you are in a minority of two on the Names Council. This is an issue 
of principle. A .org taskforce consensus is now being overturned by the 
commercial registrars aided by disinformation by the ICANN staff. This is 
totally unacceptable. By standing firm and refusing to cave in you give us 
all the right to fight this issue out at the next ICANN Board.


>However, I lost. Political realities make it
>completely fruitless to avoid the ICANN's
>staff's insistence that we conform
>to their template contracts.

Surely, the part of contracts concerning the relation of sponsored gTLDs to 
the commercial registrars is still under negotiation, particularly with 
regard to .coop? My understanding was that no agreement had been reached on 
this yet, though the commercial registrars are trying to force the sponsors 
of .coop to cave in to their demands by dragging negotiations on, knowing 
that Poptel is loosing large amounts of money while it can't launch .coop.

>Furthermore,
>fighting about that issue would threaten
>our real policy objectives regarding .org,
>as we would be fighting about process
>and governance issues rather than defining
>policies for .org

Control over registrars is vital for all non-commercial sponsored gTLDs, 
not just for .org, as Duncan Pruett explained in detail to the public 
comment in relation to .union. It is particularly essential for .org, 
because, as we have discussed at length on this list, its identity as a 
non-commercial gTLD can only be established through marketing through 
suitable registrars identifying with its non-commercial nature.

>It's not ME who caved in on this issue,
>it's the rest of the Names Council, all
>of them except YJ and me. Including our
>own Vany Martinez.
>
>If there are no other supporters who
>will insist that the TF work be accepted,
>then we must work within the constraints
>imposed on us.
>
>So, do you want sponsored or unsponsored?

Of course I want sponsored, but:

a) I believe sponsored, restricted is impossible for .org and that only the 
sponsored, unrestricted .org plans that have been overwhelming supported by 
this NCDNHC can work. I didn't always believe this, but I have become 
convinced by the strong arguments put forward in the debate here. After 
long and detailed discussion we reached something very close to consensus. 
This position was then fought for by you on the .org taskforce and received 
near consensus there as well. Now, suddenly, both these consensuses are to 
be overthrown by intervention by the ICANN staff and blackmail by the 
commercial registrars. This makes a total farce of the "bottom-up 
consensus" that ICANN claims to represent. I think exposing this farce at 
the next ICANN Board is now our main task and is best carried out by you 
and YJ continuing to stand by the original (double) consensus.

b) I think sponsored non-commercial gTLDs will be totally useless if the 
sponsors cannot have control over the registrars. This is vital for .coop, 
.union, etc, etc as well as .org. If we allow the commercial registrars to 
get away with imposing their narrow vested interests then, frankly, the 
whole concept of a specifically non-commercial domain name sector is 
virtually dead.

Chris Bailey



> >>> Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> 12/19/01 06:20AM >>>
>Dear Milton,
>
>At the face to face meeting of the NCDNHC in MDR a "sponsored,
>unrestricted" .org was supported overwhelming (27 to 2, I think?). It is a
>perfectly valid concept that has been discussed at length and in detail
>here. As you say, the ICANN staff however "have promoted the (false) idea
>that it "cannot be executed."" So why are you proposing that we give in to
>this false idea instead of countering it?