[ncdnhc-discuss] .coop and .org

[Chris Bailey]

The .coop Registrar Agreement has, contrary to what I thought earlier, now 
been concluded and is at

http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/sponsorship-agmt-att9-05nov01.htm

Whilst this agreement was considerably less restrictive on registrars than 
the .coop sponsoring organisation originally proposed, it nonetheless 
contains a number of principles that seem very relevant to .org and, it 
seems to me, it could make a good model for framing a .org Registrar Agreement.

Particularly notable are that the Agreement insists that registrars must 
have "Demonstrated willingness and ability to publicize and market the 
.coop TLD, and to follow all .coop TLD marketing guidelines and to use its 
materials as appropriate, as reflected by a minimum committed marketing 
budget of an amount proportionate to the size of the registrar".

It also introduces a "Contractual commitment to remit a stated portion 
(established by the Sponsor from time to time on a uniform basis) of any 
registrar service fees received to the Sponsor's Digital Divide Fund or, in 
lieu thereof to make a stated initial contribution to such a fund, 
proportionate to the size of the registrar."

So,

a) The .coop sponsor is insisting on the need for registrars to market the 
TLD according to its guidelines and materials.

b) The principle has been established of insisting that registrars pay some 
of their profits into a fund to be used for overcoming Digital Divide 
issues. This is in line with proposals we discussed on this list earlier 
about setting up a similar "trust fund" for .org  for developing 
non-commercial Internet interests (including Digital Divide issues).

I still maintain that both these issues are even more important for .org 
than they are for .coop.

But,

I agree completely with Duncan Pruett that a restricted .org TLD cannot 
work. Therefore a sponsored restricted .org wouldn't work.

The only other choice we are told we have is an unsponsored, unrestricted 
TLD. But this is what .org is already! Since this choice doesn't allow a 
sponsoring organisation, a charter, or restrictions on registrars, our only 
role would seem to be to throw our weight behind supporting the bid of a 
particular Registry Operator we feel might do a better job of marketing 
.org than Verisign did. After that our role would appear to be pretty well 
finished.

Conclusion:

Our original idea of a sponsored, unrestricted TLD that achieved a 
non-commercial image for .org through marketing and image was correct and 
is the best formula for dealing with the peculiar nature of .org. Why is it 
not possible to have a sponsoring organisation, a charter and a Registrar 
Agreement with similar wording to that of the .coop agreement, for an 
unrestricted TLD?

The answer to this seems to be "because Louis Touton says you can't".

This is just not acceptable. If we accept that Touton can overturn an 
almost unanimous democratic decision in this way then there seems little 
point in the NCDNHC existing at all. I think this issue has now become more 
important than the question of .org itself.

I vote that we stand by our original position and argue this out at the 
next ICANN meeting.

Chris Bailey