[ncdnhc-discuss] Sponsored Unrestricted: a new category? (was before Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG)

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Chris and all:

Chris Bailey wrote:

> Then let's do it.
> 
> Chris Bailey

As an specific idea, I don't support any unrestricted model for .ORG,
since the NCDNHC has a great stake in .ORG which makes that we have a
job to do
modelling again .ORG, in the best interests of the Non-Commercial sector
that NCDNHC works for.

The definition of a Sponsored TLD means automatically a
compromise with the target community.  And, in my view, such compromise
doesn't 
exists if there is not some kind of layout and framework of the
TLD...This layout and framework is the "Restricted" category, and this
implies more than restrictions as such.  

Unrestricted means no layout at all.  And if there is no layout, then
there's no compromise, then no need to be an Sponsor
Organization and then a TLD is not Sponsored.

And I believe that .ORG is the dream of the NCDNHC to become it finally
the home for Non-Commercials.  And this is why I have always promoted
the idea of
Sponsored Restricted, category which is designed for a total commitment
of the Sponsor Organization
to the target community regarding Policy Making on Domain Names inside
the Sponsored TLD .  

However, and if the  NCDNHC membership considers that SU is of its
interest
as a means that ICANN offers more options for future new TLDs (and not
as a way to
to force ICANN to comply a request from the NCDNHC or DNSO for .ORG
since the Unrestricted feature
doesn't force any commitment of the Sponsor with the target community
inside such TLD regarding Domain Name
Policy issues), then go ahead, and those in favor of the existence of an
SU category, work on it as a general matter and
not focused specifically in .ORG. 

You would be succesfull if you can conciliate Sponsored with
Unrestricted
based in the definition of "Sponsored" that ICANN has stablished already
which
is totally incompatible with Unrestricted.


Cheers
Vany
:-)







> 
> >Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 23:22:41 -0800
> >To: barbara.simons at mindspring.com
> >From: Dave Crocker <dhc2 at dcrocker.net>
> >Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG
> >Cc: "Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin at law.miami.edu>,
> >    Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa>,
> >    Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>, discuss at icann-ncc.org
> >
> >At 11:08 PM 12/27/2001 -0800, Barbara Simons wrote:
> > >I agree with Milton, Michael, and the majority of the
> > >constituency on this issue.
> >
> >all these statements of support for a particular person are really great.
> >
> >the only problem is that there is no clear statement of what actual
> >position or decision is being supported.
> >
> >so all these statements do not help to establish what group consensus is
> >concerning any particular point.
> >
> >Perhaps folks could consider being more specific about the issue and
> >decision they are supporting, rather than making the matter personal?
> >
> >d/
> >
> >
> >----------
> >Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
> >Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
> >tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464
> 
> I agree. Although I think there certainly was a near consensus for
> Sponsored, Unrestricted, I think Vany is right to say:
> 
>  > > And, as far as I know, there's no official support yet from this
>  > > constituency for
>  > > Unesponsored Unrestricted.
> 
> Milton, Barbara and others can not interpret a near consensus for SU as
> meaning there is one for UU.
> 
> But so long as SU is being ruled out this simply means Vany is reviving old
> arguments in favour of Restricted that *were lost* some time ago.
> 
> There has been only one near consensus established and that is for SU. So
> let's proceed with whatever is necessary to bring this to fruition.
> 
> If, as Vany claims, the correct procedure for carrying forward our original
> near consensus position of Sponsored, Unrestricted is:
> 
> >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.
> 
> Then let's do it.
> 
> Chris Bailey
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
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