[ncdnhc-discuss] Unsponsored unrestricted draft

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> 12/28/01 07:30AM >>>
> But so long as SU is being ruled out this simply means Vany is reviving 
> old arguments in favour of Restricted that *were lost* some time ago.

Exactly. 

> There has been only one near consensus established and that is for SU. 
> So let's proceed with whatever is necessary to bring this to fruition.

Here is the draft I have proposed to the TF. I think you can
see that it comes as close to the Sponsored, Unrestricted model
as is possible. 

========

NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
(Unsponsored, Unrestricted Model)

The .org registry should be operated as an 
unsponsored, unrestricted domain, but responsibility 
for administration should be delegated to a non-profit 
organization that has widespread support from and acts 
on behalf of the worldwide community of organizations, 
groups, and individuals engaged in noncommercial 
communication via the Internet.

1. Characteristics of the Organization

Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to 
a non-profit organization that is controlled by 
noncommercial .org registrants and non-commercial 
organizations. We recognize that noncommercial 
registrants do not have homogeneous views about policy 
and management, and that no single organization can 
fully encompass the diversity of global civil society. 
Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able 
to demonstrate support and participation from a 
significant number of international noncommercial 
registrants and organizations. The organization's 
policies and practices should strive to be responsive 
to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user 
community, and reflect as much of its diversity as 
possible.

Applicants for operation of the .org registry should 
be recognized non-profit corporations, as that is 
defined in the legal jurisdiction in which the 
organization is incorporated. The articles of 
incorporation and bylaws should restrict the 
activities of the corporation to the non-profit 
management and operation of the .org top level domain 
name registry. Subcontracting of operational functions 
to for-profit providers is permitted.

Applicants should propose governance structures that 
provide noncommercial .org registrants with the 
opportunity to directly participate in the selection 
of officers and/or policy-making council members. The 
bylaws should provide explicitly for an open, 
transparent and participatory process by which .org 
operating policies are initiated, reviewed and revised 
in a manner which reflects the interests of .org 
domain name holders and is consistent with the terms 
of its registry agreement with ICANN.

2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants

2a. Definition of the .org community
Each applicant organization should include in its 
application a definition of the relevant community for 
which names in the .org TLD are intended, detailing 
the types of registrants who constitute the target 
market for .org, and proposing marketing and branding 
practices oriented toward that community. 

As policy guidance, the DNSO notes that the definition 
of the relevant community should be much broader than 
formal non-profit organizations. It must also include 
individuals and groups seeking an outlet for 
noncommercial expression and information exchange, 
unincorporated cultural, educational and political 
organizations, and business partnerships with non-
profits and community groups for social initiatives.

2b. Unrestricted eligibility
Dot org will remain an unrestricted domain. With a 
definition of the served community and appropriate 
marketing practices in place, the organization and the 
registrars should rely entirely on end-user choice to 
determine who registers in .org.

Specifically, applicants:
· Must not propose to evict existing registrants who 
do not conform to its target community. Current 
registrants must not have their registrations 
cancelled nor should theybe denied the opportunity to 
renew their names or transfer them to others.

· Must not attempt to impose any new prior 
restrictions on people or organizations attempting to 
register names 

· Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt, 
any new dispute initiation procedures that could 
result in the cancellation of domain delegations. The 
UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.

2c. Support for noncommercial participants
Applicants should propose methods of supporting and 
assisting non-commercial participants in the ICANN 
process. 

2d. Registrars
All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to 
register names in .org. However, applicants are 
encouraged to propose methods of managing the 
relationship between the registry and registrars that 
encourage differentiation of the domain.

2e. Definition of marketing practices
Applicants should propose specific marketing policies 
and practices designed to differentiate the domain, 
promote and attract registrations from the defined 
community, and minimize defensive and duplicative 
registrations. 

3. The Verisign endowment

In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-
profit organizations to compete for award of the .org 
sponsorship agreement, the Board should 
· require no more than the equivalent of USD$100,000 
in demonstrated financial resources from applicants, 
and 
· fund from the endowment to be provided by Verisign 
the costs of conducting the application evaluation and 
selection process, and 
· upon signing of a sponsorship agreement with ICANN, 
the selected non-profit organization will receive an 
immediate donation of USD $500,000 from the endowment 
to defray its startup and initial operating costs, and 
another USD $2 million after it becomes operational to 
support publicity and promotional activities required 
to differentiate the domain.

4. The Registry Operator

Any entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization to 
operate the .org registry must fuction efficiently 
and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality 
of service for all .org users worldwide, including a 
commitment to making registration, assistance and 
other services available in different time zones and 
different languages. The price of registration 
proposed by the new entity should be as low as 
feasible consistent with the maintenance of good 
quality service. 

5. ICANN Policies

As an unsponsored domain, .org TLD administration must 
adhere to policies defined through ICANN processes, 
such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, 
shared registry access, the uniform dispute resolution 
policy, and access to registration contact data via 
WHOIS. 

6. Follow up

ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-
profit organizations to assume responsibility for 
operation of the .org registry with a deadline no 
later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, 
selection and agreement process may be completed well 
in advance of the 31 December expiration of the 
current agreement with Verisign.

ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names 
Council to review the request for proposals (RFP) 
prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public 
dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in 
consultation with the Task Force to ensure compliance 
with the policy. There will be only one review cycle. 
Application fees should be as low as possible 
consistent with the objective of discouraging 
frivolous applications.