[ncdnhc-discuss] business constituency on .ORG

[Adam Peake]

>Dear Adam,
>The BC project is out of scope. As one cannot fight everything, my only
>objection was to add .org should not be operated by an organization having
>ties, not only with NSI but also with the ICANN. IMO the corporation ICANN
>- however a non-profit - is to look for contracted revenues. Managing .org
>would be prefect for them. I am quite certain this idea occured to the Staff.
>Jefsey
>



No, can't do it.  Bylaws:

Article IV, Powers,
Section 1. General Power
(b) The Corporation shall not act as a Domain Name System Registry or 
Registrar or Internet Protocol Address Registry in competition with 
entities affected by the policies of the Corporation.

Adam


>On 10:26 23/08/01, Adam Peake said:
>>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
>>_______________________________________________
>>Discuss mailing list
>>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss