<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2>I wanted to share with everyone a posting I just made to the ICANN's website's .ORG discussion area. I wish that I were in Ghana to present my concerns and hopes for .ORG in the open public forum. I hope and ask that those in Accra share their hopes for the future of a robust and diverse .ORG -- without the ex-post challenges urged by the business constituency -- with the Board.
<BR>
<BR>If someone would like to read my statement (below) in the meeting, I would be most grateful. regards and thanks, kathy kleiman
<BR>
<BR>---- response to minority report --
<BR>The comments of ACM's Internet Governance Project to the Names Council Task Force (TF)Report are already listed on the DNSO and ICANN websites. We whole-heartedly support the recommendations of the TF. At the time, we did not respond to the Minority report of the business constituency, but would like to here.
<BR>
<BR>In looking at this report, it is important to make a few observations. In RFC 1591, Dr. Postel envisioned .ORG as a "miscellaneous TLD." It has become just that -- a place for all the personal, political, community, discussion and organizational activity that is diverse and important in its own right.
<BR>
<BR>The future registry should not become a guarantor that the communication in .ORG registrations is noncommercial only -- (just as we would never ask Verisign to be the guarantor that .COM websites are for commercial uses only). .ORG has a vast variety of communication activity and some of it may border on financial dealings (Girl Scouts sell cookies; the Red Cross raises tens of millions of dollars). But this is hardly a problem.
<BR>
<BR>Even in a world where .ORG was shamelessly promoted for commercial purposes -- by NSI/Verisign -- the world did not come to an end. The UDRP worked well. In the world where .ORG is actively marketed and promoted for noncommercial activity (TF recommendation), the commercial users will leave of their own accord -- they already are choosing not to renew their .ORG names. ICANN should not allow any ex-post challenges of .ORG registrations -- except for UDRP.
<BR>
<BR>First, there is no reason to go beyond UDRP (and law actually says that we don't even need the UDRP since laws throughout the world do not consider noncommercial use to be infringement of a trademark -- but that is another issue).
<BR>
<BR>Second, real damage could be done by forcing future .ORG registrants to face a new set of ex-post challenges. Dot-ORG registrants are often our least resourced and least experienced participants online. They come to share their ideas (e.g., in parenting and gardening forums), and their political concerns (e.g., in postings about corruption in their native countries). Their input is extremely valuable -- a tremendous source of information beyond the press and beyond national borders.
<BR>
<BR>But noncommercial participants/domain name holders are often not in a position to defend their right to communicate. In fact, in democratic societies, we go out of our way to protect the rights of our least resourced people to speak. We must not create a special set of hurdles for them online and in the DNS.
<BR>
<BR>If there is a trademark concern, then allow challenges to the registration through the UDRP. But please don't go any further by allowing other types of ex-post challenges -- there is no reason to. .ORG is a tremendous Internet resource. Thanks for keeping it that way! Regards,
<BR>
<BR>Kathryn Kleiman
<BR>Director, ACM's Internet Governance Project
<BR>
<BR>
<BR></FONT></HTML>