[ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG

[Kent Crispin]

On Wed, Dec 26, 2001 at 11:39:45PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
[...]
> Our original sponsored, unrestricted proposal
> would have the .org registry define a "charter"
> identifying their community. But it would not
> restrict entry at the point of registration. 

Those are two independent issues: restrictions need not operate at
registration time.  They can be enforced solely through
post-registration DRP processes referred to in the registration
agreement. 

> > To obligate to Registrars in engage
> > in specific marketing practices would generate 
> > more costs to Registrars
> > which probably would have as consequence a higher
> > cost for a domain name within .ORG 
> 
> Yes, that's one reasons why we are moving toward 
> favoring an "unsponsored, unrestricted" model.
> If you are a "sponsored" domain you are obligated
> to qualify registrars and control their practices
> to some degree.

With post-registration DRP enforcement of the charter this is really a 
non-issue.  The only effect on registrars is that they use a different 
registration agreement than they currently do for .org -- no more 
complex to deal with than the procedures for .info and .biz.

> > Anyway, to discourage undesirable registrations the 
> > best tool is the CHARTER.
> 
> The charter is just words on paper. The question is
> whether and how you enforce registrations to conform
> to it. 
> 
> > Since .ORG Divesture means that .ORG will be a 
> > Registry different to NSI, then, and based in the 
> > Policy Statement on .ORG, Would all Registrars that 
> > already paid fees to NSI, with the new .ORG Registry,
> > also Registrars has to pay again fees in order to be 
> > able to follow providing their Registrars Services 
> > for .ORG?
> 
> Answer: depends on whether it is "sponsored" or
> "unsponsored." If it is "sponsored" then everything
> muistchange for registrars. 

That simply isn't true.  The fact that a sponsoring organization *can* 
impose requirements on registrars doesn't mean that a sponsoring 
organization *must* impose requirements.

> If it is unsponsored,
> then their NSI fees could carry over.
> 
> > What about new Registrars
> > that were acredited to ICANN after .ORG Divesture?
> 
> The applicants will make proposals about what to do.
> It is too detailed for the policy stage. We did, 
> however, ask that any costs not be excessive.
> 
> > what is the idea:  To not use anymore such Registrars
> > services and transfers all domain names to 
> > Registrars that agreed in engage activities...or 
> > simply not use anymore such Registrar but letting
> > such Registrar maintain their actual domain names 
> > inside .ORG? 
> 
> Your question assumes that we are using the "sponsored
> unrestricted" model. But we have to change that.
> We are forced to choose "unsponsored, unrestricted"
> or "sponsored, restricted." 
> 
> If we choose S,R, then registrars will have to change,

There is nothing in the S,R model that *requires* significant change on 
the part of the registrars.  

> although old registrations may be grandfathered.
> Ifwe choose U,U, it is not a problem, because
> anyone can be a registrar.

That could also be the case with a S,R model.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent at songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain