[ncdnhc-discuss] Fwd:Concerning a restricted .org (again)

[Kent Crispin]

"duncan" <dmtpruett at igc.org> wrote:
[...]
>
>When I argued this one out with the representatives of the Intellectual
>Property Constituency in Marina Del Rey in the context of .union we defended
>exactly this approach - that the UDRP would need to be changed so that only
>a bona fide trade union could bring a complaint against a registration in
>the proposed TLD - because the UDRP says _anyone_ can bring a challenge.

There is a fine point that must be addressed: indeed, *at some level*
anyone must be able a challenge, because there has to be at least a 
stage where their credentials can be assessed.  IANAL, but it seems to 
me that this issue is adequately addressed by requiring the entity 
bringing the action to post a bond to cover the cost of that part of the 
proceeding -- if it turns out that their action was frivolous, or that 
they really don't have standing on prima facie grounds, then the bond 
covers the cost of the proceeding, and their case is thrown out.  
If it degenerates to pure harassment, then there are other avenues that 
could be pursued -- eg, civil action against the abuser.

>I
>continue to argue that those criteria are the problem, and not the mechanism
>you put in place to enforce them. I'm sure you could find a hundred ways of
>running a restricted domain. You could refine and refine till you get to a
>perfect mechanism. But if the criteria are highly contraversial, it doesn't
>matter how perfect your system is.

Your point in general is well-taken.  I don't think it applies in this
case.  People are focussed on the dificulty of defining
"non-commercial", and assume that, for example, some kind of official
designation of "non-profit" status from a state agency is required.  But
that is not the way the original charter for .org was defined -- it
defined "non-commercial" as "not commercial".  It is much easier to
identify an entity whose primary purpose is commercial... 

>Maybe I've missed it, but I don't think there has been any serious
>discussion of those criteria on this list.

You haven't missed it.

[...]
>...there is a well-structured
>international trade union movement to handle this kind of question - that
>means that there was a bunch of people legitimately representing trade
>unions all over the world qualified to discuss this (ditto for .museum, and
>.coop). But there's nothing like that for the nebulous "non-commercial"
>community, except perhaps the NCDNHC.

The NCC is not a possible candidate.  It is a part of ICANN, and ICANN 
cannot be a registry.

>Of course, this platform could play a
>role in this, but then it should not start by discussing whether restrictive
>TLDs can work - we'll learn those lessons from .coop and .museum.

I have not followed .coop, but I have followed the .museum case closely for a 
very long time -- since before ICANN existed, in fact -- and it really 
does seem to be working.  One should not forget .edu, as well -- it is 
a restricted domain that was run sloppily for some time, and then 
divested from NSI.  There are some edge cases, but they are very few, 
and in general .edu seems to be working just fine.

>Plenty of
>lawyers already working on that side of the issue! I respectfully submit
>that the NCDNHC should start by working out whether any definition or
>criteria can gain anything close to broad acceptance. I'd be not only amazed
>but also delighted to discover that something could be worked out. If that
>ever happens, people can go off and prepare ingenious proposals to run it.

Indeed, intelligent discussion of a set of criteria for .org would be
quite useful.  I am sceptical that the NCC will be able to come up with
anything -- it appears to be dominated by people who strongly oppose
restricted TLDs on ideological grounds. 

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