[ncdnhc-discuss] guidance on .org

[hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu]

At 08:35 PM 12/16/2001 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:

>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.


I believe that this is the better model.

First, any proposal to transform .ORG from an *unrestricted* domain to a 
*restricted* domain would likely generate howls of protest.  Reducing the 
availability of an existing resource is potentially very 
controversial.  Furthermore, many protests would likely originate with 
non-commercial organizations like our own.

In the future, a restricted "free speech" domain may be appropriate, but I 
hesitate to try to re-define .ORG in that manner.  .ORG should stay 
unrestricted.

As I understand it, we accept Louis Touton's denial of the category 
"unrestricted-sponsored."  So if we accept that .ORG is to remain 
unrestricted, then we cannot have a formally sponsored operator.

Nonetheless, it would be appropriate to include language that in some way 
encourages a connection between the operator and the non-commercial 
community.  Milton's language does this:  "...strong policy guidance that 
the registry operator be representative of the noncommercial community."

I suppose that this is as close to sponsorship as we will get.

So option 1 looks best.

Hans



>X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise Internet Agent 5.5.5.1
>From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
>To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by NetAction.OR.KR id 
>fBH1Z6I17216
>Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] guidance on .org
>Sender: discuss-admin at icann-ncc.org
>X-BeenThere: discuss at icann-ncc.org
>X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.3
>List-Help: <mailto:discuss-request at icann-ncc.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>List-Subscribe: <http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>,
>         <mailto:discuss-request at icann-ncc.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Discussion List of Non-Commercial Domain Name Holders 
>Constituency  <discuss.icann-ncc.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss>,
>         <mailto:discuss-request at icann-ncc.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://www.icann-ncc.org/pipermail/discuss/>
>Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:35:49 -0500
>
>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