[ncdnhc-discuss] business constituency on .ORG

[Adam Peake]

Text of the business constituency's draft (slightly controversial 
draft - seems they have even more trouble with their internal 
processes than we do!) of their position on .org.

Milton - could you update us on your discussions around .org?  Would 
he helpful if we could update our position before Montevideo.

And have you considered holding a meeting in Montevideo where all the 
constituencies could be encouraged to put forward positions for all 
to discuss.  Perhaps such a meeting could be held under the GA?

On the BC proposal:

I think it's a shame they have gone for requiring adherence to the 
ICANN UDRP, it may not be (*may not be*) as necessary in a 
non-commercial space and different conditions might be more 
appropriate.  Should be a position for discussion.

On the one hand it says the new operator should be in compliance with 
the ICANN WHOIS, then closes with "There should be an open and 
effective WhoIs capability."  Not mutually exclusive, but as with the 
UDRP it is something for discussion, to encourage new ways of 
operating to suit different ways of operating. Not much point in 
creating new names spaces if at the end of the day the rules for all 
are the same (rules clung to rather narrowly in the hope of defending 
bits of turf.) The principle "open and effective Whois capability" is 
fine and is a better basis for discussion and possible improvement.

On limiting membership to appropriate organisations: "The Registry 
would establish a simple UDRP-style means to deal with an objection. 
A finding in favour of the objection would cancel the offending 
registration."  Is interesting, but suspect the troubles we have 
deciding who is eligible for membership of the NCC shows this will be 
an extremely time consuming (so for this professionally run 
operation, expensive) and contentious matter. Would be interested to 
hear more.

Last -- a space for organisations.  Guess this means marketing to 
discourage individuals?

Thanks,

Adam



DRAFT ICANN DNSO Business Constituency position on dot org v3

Context
Resolved [01.71] that the Board refers to the Names Council for its 
consideration the issues raised by the scheduled transition of the 
operation of the .org top-level domain from VeriSign to a new entity, 
including at least:
(a) whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as 
responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new 
entity;
(b) the characteristics of the entity to be selected or established;
(c) selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;
(d) principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or 
unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.); and
(e) policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain 
(to the extent they are not to be established by the entity).
Further resolved [01.72] that the Names Council is requested to 
provide a report on its progress on the issues referred by resolution 
01.71, including any policy recommendations it has developed, no 
later than 12 October 2001; and
Further resolved [01.73] that the report will then be posted for 
public comment in advance of ICANN's third annual meeting in November 
2001.


Whether to select an existing entity to succeed VeriSign as 
responsible for operation of the .org TLD, or to establish a new 
entity.
The Business Constituency (BC) believes that an entity independent of 
Verisign and free of all current and future contractual relations 
with Verisign should become the dot org registry.

The characteristics of the entity to be selected or established
Since the dot org registry will be a monopoly, consideration should 
be given to the advantages of a not-for-profit model, such as a 
not-for-profit corporation in the private sector. There should be 
separation between registry and registrar functions.

Selection criteria for the entity or its organizers;
It is important that the registry operator should have sufficient 
resources to provide a high quality service level for registrars and 
registrants. A set of technical, financial and policy criteria should 
be established in advance and then tenders requested in compliance 
with these criteria. Award would go to the entity likely to fulfil 
the criteria in an optimal way.

These criteria should be based on the criteria already developed by 
ICANN for new TLD registries and also include other provisions 
including:
- a requirement for the entity to demonstrate how it will fulfil the 
requirements of compliance with ICANN WHOIS, UDRP
- a mechanism to ensure that the selected registry continues to 
fulfil the required criteria during its contract.

Principles governing its relationship with ICANN (sponsored or 
unsponsored TLD, term of operation, etc.)
Dot org should be chartered and marketed as a space for 
organisations. The charter should include a definition of 
organisation that is wide to include commercial and non-commercial 
while giving a sense of members not shareholders.

Policies for the entity's operation of the .org top-level domain
1. UDRP. Mandatory acceptance of the ICANN UDRP.

2. Charter enforcement. There should be enforcement of the charter 
not by a restrictive registration policy but by marketing backed-up 
by a domain name holders objection procedure. In brief a bona fide 
dot org registrant could object to the Registry that a registrant 
seems not to be an organisation as defined in the charter. The 
Registry would establish a simple UDRP-style means to deal with an 
objection. A finding in favour of the objection would cancel the 
offending registration.

3. Grandfathering. There are a number of businesses that have chosen 
to establish a presence in dot org and have invested in this. They 
should not be penalised by a change in policy. Existing registrants 
in dot org should be entitled to remain there.

4. WhoIs. There should be an open and effective WhoIs capability.

END