[ncdnhc-discuss] .coop and .org

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Chris:

Thank you for bring us the sponsorship agreement of .COOP.

Chris Bailey wrote:
> 
> The .coop Registrar Agreement has, contrary to what I thought earlier, now
> been concluded and is at
> 
> http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/coop/sponsorship-agmt-att9-05nov01.htm
> 
> Whilst this agreement was considerably less restrictive on registrars than
> the .coop sponsoring organisation originally proposed, it nonetheless
> contains a number of principles that seem very relevant to .org and, it
> seems to me, it could make a good model for framing a .org Registrar Agreement.

Agree it could be a good model and the new .ORG Registry can take some
guidelines from there.

> Particularly notable are that the Agreement insists that registrars must
> have "Demonstrated willingness and ability to publicize and market the
> .coop TLD, and to follow all .coop TLD marketing guidelines and to use its
> materials as appropriate, as reflected by a minimum committed marketing
> budget of an amount proportionate to the size of the registrar".
Well, but there wasn't .COOP in the past.  The begining of .ORG is not
a beginng from scratch.

> It also introduces a "Contractual commitment to remit a stated portion
> (established by the Sponsor from time to time on a uniform basis) of any
> registrar service fees received to the Sponsor's Digital Divide Fund or, in
> lieu thereof to make a stated initial contribution to such a fund,
> proportionate to the size of the registrar."
Well, it is a nice aproach.  Good for them.  If applicants for .ORG
Registry
wants to propose something similar, then it would be a good thing. 
Maybe
a fund for encourage more and more Non-Commercials particiapting in
ICANN...
which indirectly would be contributing to close Digital Divide.
 
> So,
> 
> a) The .coop sponsor is insisting on the need for registrars to market the
> TLD according to its guidelines and materials.
Although I am simpatetic with the idea of marketing, I think this is a
task
that should correspond to the Registry.  Registrars should not be
obligated to do it.
Again, .ORG is not a TLD begining from the scratch.
 
> b) The principle has been established of insisting that registrars pay some
> of their profits into a fund to be used for overcoming Digital Divide
> issues. This is in line with proposals we discussed on this list earlier
> about setting up a similar "trust fund" for .org  for developing
> non-commercial Internet interests (including Digital Divide issues).
Good!!, totally agree.


> I still maintain that both these issues are even more important for .org
> than they are for .coop.
Yes...both they are important. Maybe the difference of opinion between
you and me 
is how it should be done.
 
> But,
> 
> I agree completely with Duncan Pruett that a restricted .org TLD cannot
> work. Therefore a sponsored restricted .org wouldn't work.
I think in this point, many people is not understanding what is the
nature
of a Restricted TLD (whether sponsored or unesponsored).  And it seems
that such 
misunderstanding of this concept is guiding some members to think that
"Restricted" will not work for .ORG.  I have realized that all concerns
that Duncan, you, Milton under the statement that concerns is because
the "Restricted" label, in fact doesn't have anything to do with to be
Restricted or
Unrestricted.   But of course, when Milton keeps saying that problems
with .ORG will arise
because Restricted nature, it becomes true even if it is a falacy.
 
> The only other choice we are told we have is an unsponsored, unrestricted
> TLD. But this is what .org is already! Since this choice doesn't allow a
> sponsoring organisation, a charter, or restrictions on registrars, our only
> role would seem to be to throw our weight behind supporting the bid of a
> particular Registry Operator we feel might do a better job of marketing
> .org than Verisign did. After that our role would appear to be pretty well
> finished.
You said it well...if the NCDNHC commits the mistake the support .ORG as
"Unesponsored"
then our role is nothing there, our stake is nothing there.  And the
Non-Commercial sector
that the NCDNHC charter commands us to care about, simply would not be
done.

> Conclusion:
> 
> Our original idea of a sponsored, unrestricted TLD that achieved a
> non-commercial image for .org through marketing and image was correct and
> is the best formula for dealing with the peculiar nature of .org. Why is it
> not possible to have a sponsoring organisation, a charter and a Registrar
> Agreement with similar wording to that of the .coop agreement, for an
> unrestricted TLD?
> 
> The answer to this seems to be "because Louis Touton says you can't".
> 
> This is just not acceptable. If we accept that Touton can overturn an
> almost unanimous democratic decision in this way then there seems little
> point in the NCDNHC existing at all. I think this issue has now become more
> important than the question of .org itself.
> 
> I vote that we stand by our original position and argue this out at the
> next ICANN meeting.

Chris, if the NCDNHC wants to support a Sponsored Unrestricted for .ORG
first such
category should exist.   Louis Touton is not saying this things just
because is
his will.   The reason why Touton says that .ORG cannot be Sponsored
Unrestricted is because
ICANN hasn't created such category yet.  Inside ICANN, Sponsored
Unrestricted is a category
that simply doesn't exists officially.  

Then, first before proposing that TLD belongs to a category that doesn't
exists, it has to be
proposed a new category for ICANN creates it.

Maybe you want to propose a resolution for the next ICANN meeting where
says something like:
"The NCDNHC requests the creation of a new category which is Sponsored
Unrestricted".
Futher you can ask in this resolution to the NCDNHC Names Council
representatives that, if such resolution
if passed, our NC representatives should seek support from the Names
Council also.

I hope that everybody here understand that people at ICANN staff are not
saying arbitrary things
regarding this subject.

Of course, always the NCDNHC can elevate the question to the ICANN
Board: Does the category Sponsoring Unrestricted
exists?  If not, does ICANN is planning to create it in the near
future?  There is a Public Forum with Open Microphone every
ICANN Board meeting and anyone is free to make such kind of questions. 
Use this opportunity to clarify doubts.

I hope that the NCDNHC reach to real understanding on what they are
deciding for.   However, whatever be the decision 
of the NCDNHC members as a whole, regardless my point of views, will be
followed when voting in the Names Council.  But in the meanwhile, I will
use the right I have inside NCDNHC (the same right that everybody has)
to promote the ideas that I think will benefit more the Non-Commercial
Sector that our charter commands us to represent inside ICANN.

Best Regards
Vany


-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org