[ncdnhc-discuss] ORG policy - discussion with Touton

[Milton Mueller]

Louis will survive. Roberts' idea will not.

>>> Jefsey Morfin <jefsey at wanadoo.fr> 12/10/01 08:45PM >>>
[snip] Louis' only pay check is to enforce two TLD black and 
white classes no one wants. And you come and show him TLDs 
are gray. And you start discussing shades. You kill the man: 
he will never be able to sell a black or a white TLD after that. 
Out of dispair Mike Roberts is even trying to sell the BC the 
idea of firing businesses out of .org.

Jefsey

On 01:59 11/12/01, Milton Mueller said:
>Councillors:
>
>I just had a long conversation with Louis Touton. I think
>he now understands the rationale behind the Task Force
>proposal better, and I understand the substance of his
>objections better. The main difference is that the TF
>viewed "sponsorship" as a continuum whereas Touton
>viewed it more as an either-or. It seems clear to me (but
>of course I cannot speak for Touton) that the sponsored,
>unrestricted concept is legally and practically viable if we
>make a few modifications. It is also possible that similar
>policy objectives could be achieved via an unsponsored,
>unrestricted model. My preference is still for the "sponsored, 
>unrestricted" framework, but the important thing is the policy
>objectives and not the label. Which way forward we take
>depends on discussions within the Names Council.
>
>The issues that need to be addressed are:
>a) Do commercial registrants have the same rights within
>the sponsoring organization's governance structure as
>noncommercial registrants?
>b) Should newORG be given the authority to develop a
>differentiated WHOIS policy?
>c) What specific authority over registrar qualification
>and/or practices are we giving newORG?
>d) Should we try to achieve the same policy objectives
>via an unsponsored, unrestricted domain?
>
>If the first three of these questions are resolved in
>certain ways, all doubts about the "sponsored" status of
>newORG should be resolved.
>
>The ORG TF is clearly the place to answer these questions,
>but I strongly recommend that it be required to address
>only the specific issues laid out above, and that it be required
>to do so on a fixed (and very short) timeline.
>
>What follows is a more detailed analysis of the issues still
>facing us. I hope you all have time to read it(!)
>
>a)      Scope of representation.
>A sponsored TLD serves a defined community. Touton's opinion
>charges that the "affected community" proposed by the ORG
>Task Force "is unbounded." This is not correct. The policy calls
>for the Sponsoring Organizations (SOs) to define the noncommercial
>registrants community to be served by the .org TLD. It provides
>specific guidelines regarding how that community is to be defined.
>It requires the SO to develop marketing and promotion policies suited
>to that bounded community. It requires the SO to be representative
>of that community in its governance structures, and to provide
>financial and other forms of support to help that community
>participate in ICANN processes.
>
>Louis' objection arises because the policy recommends that the
>SO regulate entry into the domain indirectly, via marketing and
>promotion policies and the relationship with registrars, instead of
>directly. In his opinion, a refusal to enforce eligibility restrictions
>means that the eligible community is unbounded. I still believe
>that this is simply too rigid a view. There are ways to define a
>bounded community other than erecting barbed-wire fences and
>engaging in systematic "domain ethnic cleansing." The TF
>chose an incentive-oriented approach that tries to make .org
>attractive to the appropriate community and discourages
>marketing practices that attract inappropriate registrations.
>This was a practical trade-off that we found justified by the
>peculiar situation of .org, which has so many legacy
>registrations and the amorphousness of "noncommercial"
>as a descriptor.
>
>There is clearly no practical problem with that approach -
>indeed, the alternative (actively policing eligibility) is far
>more difficult to define and implement.
>
>I think I got Louis to agree that actively restricting eligibility
>to register is only one of many possible delegations of authority
>to a sponsor, and that it need not be present for a domain
>to qualify as "sponsored" as long as there are other significant
>delegations.
>
>Which leads to:
>
>b)      Scope of delegation
>A sponsored TLD is delegated more authority over policy for
>the domain than an unsponsored TLD. Louis lists 6 broad
>categories of delegated authority. Of those, two (A and E)
>apply only to new TLDs and thus are inapplicable to this case.
>(There is no startup problem and no possibility of imposing
>naming conventions on an existing, highly populated space.)
>Of the remaining four, the proposed .ORG policy takes specific
>positions in two areas (selection and supervision of the registry
>operator, and practices of registrars and terms of dealing).
>
>The TF also discussed doing something different from the
>norm on WHOIS policies (item F), but certain constituencies
>preferred that we not do so. I personally, and most members
>of my constituency, would like to see newORG have the
>authority to create its own WHOIS policy. If the Task Force is
>willing to reopen this issue I would be amenable.
>
>I agree with Louis, however, that there is ambiguity in the
>report regarding how registrars are treated. We proposed
>that prospective sponsoring organizations be open to all ICANN
>accredited registrars, and that the Sponsor be concerned only
>with the way .org is marketed by them. The Task Force
>deliberately chose to leave it open to applicants to propose
>methods to enforce the appropriate marketing policies,
>articulating only a general admonition that the proposed methods
>"promote and enhance differentiation while minimizing
>bureaucracy, enforcement costs, and restrictions on registrars."
>
>Louis argues convincingly that to qualify as a sponsored
>domain, the Task Force must recommend stronger policies
>regarding registrar qualification. E.g., the new ORG must
>be able to "qualify" registrars and or specify certain
>practices they must conform to to be eligible to register
>names.
>
>Section III
>In this section, Louis argues that everything we are trying
>to achieve via sponsorship could be achieved more easily
>by making ORG an unsponsored domain and imposing policy
>guidelines on to whom it is delegated. For example, policy
>can specify that the registry operator be non-profit rather
>than for-profit, that it be delegated to an organization with
>an acceptable marketing plan focused on the appropriate
>community.
>
>The idea of making org an unsponsored domain makes
>most noncommercial constituency members uncomfortable.
>Calling it a sponsored domain sends a strong signal to the
>applicant pool that a successful applicant must have a clear
>definition of the relevant community it will focus on, a
>community of which it will be representative and to which it
>will be accountable. While we could write policies that apply
>these criteria to an "unsponsored" registry operator, the
>intent seems more aligned with the sponsored model. I believe
>that the emphasis on sponsorship gives the Board clearer
>guidelines in selecting applicants. Also, an unsponsored domain
>would have a weaker ability, and possibly no ability, to
>influence the marketing policies of registrars.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss