[ncdnhc-discuss] IMPORTANT: Need guidance from you regarding .org

[Jim Fleming]

Can one assume....???

1. .ORG registrations will be FREE....as in $$$ FREE
and the non-profit will rely on donations, as most non-profits do.

2. .ORG will be like /MNT on Linux and Unix...a convienant
place to "mount" other things....those other things being the new
TLDs which will be able to be added with the new Lame-D servers.
In other words, .ORG will be a behind the scenes TLD mostly hidden
by software that just uses it to wire other structures into the DNS.
With .ORG being FREE as in $$$ FREE, it could be like dot, the root.
Since ICANN Management has said there will not be any more TLDs,
it appears that such a device will be needed. As an example, XXX.ORG
would be the legacy mount point for the XXX TLD. The .ORG would
be tossed or viewed as ORGY, whichever people want to think and
whichever way software people program their systems.

3. If 2 will not be likely, then the -DLD.com approach will likely be
the best way to wire into the legacy (restricted) IPv4 DNS. Using the
.XXX example, people register under -XXX.com and the Lame-D
servers will map strings with .XXX to look-ups in -XXX.com. When
the pair of nameservers are returned, the owner can then resolve the
.XXX zone on their nameservers. It looks like this approach will be
needed with .BIZ, because neither of the IPv4 .BIZ Registries are
fully functional.

4. .ORG appears to be the only hope for a NON TLD, a dead TLD
which is assumed to be a catch-all for many of the uses TLDs were
needed for, but which the ICANN Board and Staff do not understand.
There is more to the DNS than web-sites. .ORG appears to be a
good choice to use for the miscellaneous uses, give that G0,G1,...G7
will not likely be allowed in the legacy root servers.

Jim Fleming
http://www.DOT-BIZ.com
http://www.Register-BIZ.com
http://www.BIZ-Registry.com



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Cc: <karl at cavebear.com>
Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2001 5:17 PM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] IMPORTANT: Need guidance from you regarding .org


> 
> At today's Names Council meeting, the Council delayed 
> adopting a .org policy statement for two reasons:
> 
> 1) Commercial registrars are concerned about a sponsored
> TLD with control over registrar qualification and marketing
> practices;
> 
> 2) ICANN management (which formally has no policy
> making role) believes that the concept of a "sponsored, 
> unrestricted domain" does not fit into its pre-defined
> contracts, which divides the world into "sponsored"
> and "unsponsored" domains. So they have promoted
> the (false) idea that the idea "cannot be executed." 
> Unfortunately, ICANN as an institution is still so 
> undeveloped that elected Names Councillors and
> even Board members are likely to defer to unelected 
> and unaccountable management.
> 
> These two problems play into each other; i.e., those
> who want to change the consensus policy have 
> seized on ICANN management's objection to use it 
> as an excuse to start over.
> 
> In the next month, some important decisions will have
> to be made about how to modify the .org policy to get
> it through. I will now try to define those issues to
> seek your advice.
> 
> There seems to be strong consensus on the
> following points:
> 
> 1. The governing body for newORG should be
> a non-profit that is broadly representative of
> the noncommercial community
> 
> 2. ORG should remain open, and no current
> registrant should be evicted.
> 
> 3. ORG should be marketed in a way that 
> differentiates and enhances its unique identity,
> not sold as a clone of .com
> 
> Points that command majority, but less 
> unanimous support, include:
> 
> 4. ORG should follow standard ICANN UDRP
> and WHOIS policies (insisted on by IPCC, B&C;
> NCDNHC, GA not happy)
> 
> 5. ORG should be able to qualify registrars
> or otherwise contractually constrain their
> marketing practices in the sale of ORG names
> (opposed by registrars, favored by IPCC, GA
> and NCDNHC). 
> 
> The most important disagreement is #5. 
> 
> We could avoid a lot of debate if we were willing
> to allow any registrar to register names in .org and
> not try to regulate how they market it. In that case
> the policy could be changed to treat ORG as an
> unsponsored, unrestricted domain and we could
> retain all the other points 1-4.
> 
> Tell me what you think. 
> 
> Cheers,
> MM
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>