[ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Dave Crocker]

At 01:52 AM 12/28/2001 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Fri, Dec 28, 2001 at 12:48:12AM -0800, Dave Crocker wrote:
> > You are not suggesting restrictions on REGISTRANTS in .org.
>
>The model I am suggesting is that there be a charter for .org; that
>charter fundamentally states that a new .org domain should nor be used
>to support a primarily commercial enterprise;

As a beginning point, I'll comment that I think the issue is NOT whether 
the model you are describing is reasonable.  It sounds entirely reasonable 
and enforceable.

The problems are with history, cost, risk and fairness, for THIS particular 
TLD.

In terms of history, it simply seems highly inappropriate to take a TLD 
that has had essentially no registration policy for more than 10 years and 
then to impose one with seriously different criteria for 
registration.  Absent a massively compelling problem that needs fixing, 
policy changes of this degree should be imposed from the start of the TLD; 
ie, as formative precepts, not as changes.

In terms of cost, I worry that enforcing any policy about who may register 
(or who may keep a registration) will raise costs.  You are suggesting that 
the enforcement be at dispute time, rather than earlier, and yes, that 
could keep the costs down.

In terms of risk, the area of dispute resolution has now established a 
lengthy and clear history of being quite difficult.  My guess is that 
Restricted TLDs need to develop a common UDRP framework, with differences 
being in details rather than basic UDRP policy.  At the least anything less 
makes it more difficult for judges to be consistent.

In terms of fairness, differential policies for registration will lead to 
changes in the treatment of existing registrants.  Existing registrants who 
do not qualify according to the new policy will receive second-class 
treatment.  In effect, they will be invited to go elsewhere -- the term 
hostile work environment comes to mind -- and yet they have done nothing 
inappropriate.  To the extent that we might try to have the rules provide 
an exception for existing registrants, such exceptions in contracts -- just 
like exceptions in a protocol specification -- have a tendency of creating 
far more problems than they eliminate.

If we had some sort of crisis about non-commercial domain name 
registration, then these problems might be worth imposing on .org.  However 
we can easily start with one or more new TLDs and impose things from the 
start, leaving .org to be consistent with its history of registrants.

BY contrast, restrictions of the registry and its registrars is much 
narrower and oddly would mostly reflect a continuation of long-term policy 
rather than a change.  (Yes, some registrars have been marketing .org as a 
.com echo, but a) that is only in very recent years, and b) forcing them to 
change their marketing does not affect end-users.)


>But, IMO, a key ingredient in that mix is that there be policy that
>explicitly favors non-commercial use, and that there be some teeth to
>it.

The reason I was (and am) liking the idea of .org restrictions on the 
registry and its registrants, rather than on registrants, is that it is 
highly narrow, and it does not directly hit the (existing) end-users.

The registry and its registrants are a much smaller group, and after all 
they are not our constituency.  They are there as intermediaries, rather 
than as a group needing "help" from us.

d/


----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464