[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: guidance on .org

[Jim Fleming]

Isn't the .ORG situation all worked out ?

http://www.icannfacts.org/about.html
Kent Crispin
ICANN is a client.
------

http://www.dot-biz.com/DNS101/index.html
http://www.dot-biz.com/Registry/Proof-Of-Concept/index.html


Jim Fleming
http://www.IPv8.info
IPv16....One Better !!

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Bailey" <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>
To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 5:20 AM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: guidance on .org


> Dear Milton,
> 
> At the face to face meeting of the NCDNHC in MDR a "sponsored, 
> unrestricted" .org was supported overwhelming (27 to 2, I think?). It is a 
> perfectly valid concept that has been discussed at length and in detail 
> here. As you say, the ICANN staff however "have promoted the (false) idea 
> that it "cannot be executed."" So why are you proposing that we give in to 
> this false idea instead of countering it?
> 
> As a group of us pointed out to the public comment, and Duncan Pruett from 
> the ICFTU argued there in detail, the concept of a sponsored, unrestricted 
> gTLD would require a "Registrar Agreement" just as other sponsored gTLDs 
> did. This would need to qualify registrars or otherwise contractually 
> constrain their marketing practices in the sale of .org names to develop 
> the gTLD as a uniquely non-commercial namespace. You tell us that this 
> received the support of IPCC, GA and NCDNHC, but was opposed by the 
> commercial registrars. Surely we always knew the commercial registrars were 
> certain to strongly oppose (you and I discussed this on this list). So why 
> are you now proposing we drop this policy in the face of this expected 
> opposition from the commercial registrars?
> 
> I suggest you stick to the overwhelming mandate you were given on this 
> issue at the MDR NCDNHC. If the Names Council consensus has ended then 
> let's start the war for the policies we agreed on.
> 
> Chris Bailey
> 
> 
> At 12:01 17/12/2001 +0900, you wrote:
> >Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 20:35:49 -0500
> >From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
> >To: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
> >Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] guidance on .org
> >
> >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
>