[ncdnhc-discuss] Unsponsored unrestricted draft

[Jefsey Morfin]

I am afraid that M$ 2,5 plus M$ 5 to 10 are missing here.
Verisign is to pay M$ 5 and has preregistration up to 10 years to reverse.
I  no way we must accept that the ICANN may make money out of "selling" TLDs.

1) ICANN has no rights on TLDs. And I am *fed up* with dishonesty creep.
2) Alt(sic)root will find a huge legal justification but will never be able 
to stop TLD squatting.
Jefsey

On 16:56 28/12/01, Milton Mueller said:
>Here is the draft I have proposed to the TF. I think you can
>see that it comes as close to the Sponsored, Unrestricted model
>as is possible.
>
>========
>
>NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
>(Unsponsored, Unrestricted Model)
>
>The .org registry should be operated as an
>unsponsored, unrestricted domain, but responsibility
>for administration should be delegated to a non-profit
>organization that has widespread support from and acts
>on behalf of the worldwide community of organizations,
>groups, and individuals engaged in noncommercial
>communication via the Internet.
>
>1. Characteristics of the Organization
>
>Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to
>a non-profit organization that is controlled by
>noncommercial .org registrants and non-commercial
>organizations. We recognize that noncommercial
>registrants do not have homogeneous views about policy
>and management, and that no single organization can
>fully encompass the diversity of global civil society.
>Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able
>to demonstrate support and participation from a
>significant number of international noncommercial
>registrants and organizations. The organization's
>policies and practices should strive to be responsive
>to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user
>community, and reflect as much of its diversity as
>possible.
>
>Applicants for operation of the .org registry should
>be recognized non-profit corporations, as that is
>defined in the legal jurisdiction in which the
>organization is incorporated. The articles of
>incorporation and bylaws should restrict the
>activities of the corporation to the non-profit
>management and operation of the .org top level domain
>name registry. Subcontracting of operational functions
>to for-profit providers is permitted.
>
>Applicants should propose governance structures that
>provide noncommercial .org registrants with the
>opportunity to directly participate in the selection
>of officers and/or policy-making council members. The
>bylaws should provide explicitly for an open,
>transparent and participatory process by which .org
>operating policies are initiated, reviewed and revised
>in a manner which reflects the interests of .org
>domain name holders and is consistent with the terms
>of its registry agreement with ICANN.
>
>2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants
>
>2a. Definition of the .org community
>Each applicant organization should include in its
>application a definition of the relevant community for
>which names in the .org TLD are intended, detailing
>the types of registrants who constitute the target
>market for .org, and proposing marketing and branding
>practices oriented toward that community.
>
>As policy guidance, the DNSO notes that the definition
>of the relevant community should be much broader than
>formal non-profit organizations. It must also include
>individuals and groups seeking an outlet for
>noncommercial expression and information exchange,
>unincorporated cultural, educational and political
>organizations, and business partnerships with non-
>profits and community groups for social initiatives.
>
>2b. Unrestricted eligibility
>Dot org will remain an unrestricted domain. With a
>definition of the served community and appropriate
>marketing practices in place, the organization and the
>registrars should rely entirely on end-user choice to
>determine who registers in .org.
>
>Specifically, applicants:
>· Must not propose to evict existing registrants who
>do not conform to its target community. Current
>registrants must not have their registrations
>cancelled nor should theybe denied the opportunity to
>renew their names or transfer them to others.
>
>· Must not attempt to impose any new prior
>restrictions on people or organizations attempting to
>register names
>
>· Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
>any new dispute initiation procedures that could
>result in the cancellation of domain delegations. The
>UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
>
>2c. Support for noncommercial participants
>Applicants should propose methods of supporting and
>assisting non-commercial participants in the ICANN
>process.
>
>2d. Registrars
>All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to
>register names in .org. However, applicants are
>encouraged to propose methods of managing the
>relationship between the registry and registrars that
>encourage differentiation of the domain.
>
>2e. Definition of marketing practices
>Applicants should propose specific marketing policies
>and practices designed to differentiate the domain,
>promote and attract registrations from the defined
>community, and minimize defensive and duplicative
>registrations.
>
>3. The Verisign endowment
>
>In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-
>profit organizations to compete for award of the .org
>sponsorship agreement, the Board should
>· require no more than the equivalent of USD$100,000
>in demonstrated financial resources from applicants,
>and
>· fund from the endowment to be provided by Verisign
>the costs of conducting the application evaluation and
>selection process, and
>· upon signing of a sponsorship agreement with ICANN,
>the selected non-profit organization will receive an
>immediate donation of USD $500,000 from the endowment
>to defray its startup and initial operating costs, and
>another USD $2 million after it becomes operational to
>support publicity and promotional activities required
>to differentiate the domain.
>
>4. The Registry Operator
>
>Any entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization to
>operate the .org registry must fuction efficiently
>and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality
>of service for all .org users worldwide, including a
>commitment to making registration, assistance and
>other services available in different time zones and
>different languages. The price of registration
>proposed by the new entity should be as low as
>feasible consistent with the maintenance of good
>quality service.
>
>5. ICANN Policies
>
>As an unsponsored domain, .org TLD administration must
>adhere to policies defined through ICANN processes,
>such as policies regarding registrar accreditation,
>shared registry access, the uniform dispute resolution
>policy, and access to registration contact data via
>WHOIS.
>
>6. Follow up
>
>ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-
>profit organizations to assume responsibility for
>operation of the .org registry with a deadline no
>later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation,
>selection and agreement process may be completed well
>in advance of the 31 December expiration of the
>current agreement with Verisign.
>
>ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names
>Council to review the request for proposals (RFP)
>prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public
>dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in
>consultation with the Task Force to ensure compliance
>with the policy. There will be only one review cycle.
>Application fees should be as low as possible
>consistent with the objective of discouraging
>frivolous applications.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss