[ncdnhc-discuss] guidance on .org

[Rob Courtney]

I agree that market enforcement of .org's identity as a resource for 
non-commercial organization could be tough, though I don't agree with 
Dave that the notion of a "sponsored unrestricted" domain is on its 
face incoherent. I realize that the NC may not be receptive to this 
any more, but it seems (at least to me) possible to define the .org 
sponsor's constituency and authorities without resorting to 
registration restrictions.

That said, and w/r/t the two proposals you listed in your message, I 
think the first (unsponsored, unrestricted) is vastly preferable to 
the second (sponsored, restricted). As has been said many times on 
this list, it doesn't seem possible to have restrictions on .org 
registrations without negatively affecting important non-commercial 
usages, or online expression in general.

The principles you listed in your earlier note all look pretty good 
to me, although (as has been said) item 5 may require compromise. If 
principle 1 ("The governing body for newORG should be a non-profit 
that is broadly representative of the noncommercial community.") were 
really beefed up, then 5 might become less necessary. Principle 1 
could include a requirement that the .org operator commit itself from 
the outset to actively promoting of the interests of the global 
non-commercial community in all aspects of the registry's management. 
That is, something more than just being representative. (The TF 
report language describing the sponsoring organization does some of 
this.)

r

At 8:35 PM -0500 12/16/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Members:
>
>Let me clarify some of the issues on the
>.org divestiture.
>
>Increasingly, it appears to me that our
>original idea of trying to regulate the
>marketing of the domain by registrars
>is not feasible. Policing and
>enforcing marketing practices is going
>to be expensive and time-consuming. Also,
>many big registrars have resellers, which
>means that the chain of production is even
>more extended.
>
>All in all I think the Shared Registry System
>makes any use of registrars as a choke point
>for enforcing policy economically, administratively,
>and politically impossible.
>
>We can respond to this problem in one of
>two ways:
>
>1) Try to structure the policy as an
>unsponsored, unrestricted domain, with
>strong policy guidance that the registry
>operator be representative of the noncommercial
>community. This might also include requiring
>that a big chunk of the $5 million be used
>to help the new domain owner promote/market
>the org TLD in a new way, focused on the
>community we represent.
>
>2) Try to adhere more closely to the
>classical "sponsored domain" model, grandfather
>existing registrants but use some kind of "charter
>enforcement dispute resolution policy" (CEDRP) to
>weed out any new registrations that are commercial.
>
>One interesting fact about a CEDRP is that the
>sponsoring organization gets to choose its own
>dispute resolution provider(s). Thus, we need
>not rely on WIPO and NAF to do this. Another
>interesting fact is that if there is a CEDRP,
>the UDRP does not apply.
>
>Also, with the stronger sponsorship model, the
>.org domain could have the authority to create
>its own WHOIS policy. This could be privacy-
>enhanced.
>
>I suspect, however, that the B&C and IP
>constituencies would not like allowing .org
>to slip out from the noose of UDRP and WHOIS
>policis, and that it would be politically
>difficult to get a "Strong sponsorship"
>model through the Task Force and Names Council.
>
>We also need to keep in mind that ICANN
>Board, not us, will ultimately chooose the
>winner of the .org domain, and that winner
>may define a restrictive CEDRP and choose
>WIPO or someone worse as a dispute provider,
>or otherwise sell out to Intellectual
>property interests.
>
>Right now I am leaning toward option 1
>here (nominally unsponsored and unrestricted).
>But I am, as always, open to reason and
>persuasion from you.
>
>Please respond quickly. We have only about ten
>working days to get this done.
>
>--MM
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss