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

[Kent Crispin]

On Sun, Dec 30, 2001 at 04:24:56PM -0500, Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales wrote:
[...]
> 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.

[...]
> 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. 

The primary purpose for the existence of a sponsoring organization is to
give the target community for a TLD a means of developing and
implementing policy for the TLD, without going through ICANN.  That is,
ICANN delegates some responsibility for those functions to the sponsor. 

In an "unrestricted" TLD, by definition, *everyone* is affected by the
policies of the TLD.  Therefore, the sponsoring organization should
provide equal access to *everyone* in developing policy.  That is, in an
unrestricted TLD, commercial entities have *precisely* as much right
determine policy for the TLD as non-commercial organizations.  In such 
a case there really is no need for a sponsoring organization at all -- 
ICANN already provides a forum for policy development for unrestricted 
gTLDs. 

Neither the idea of a "sponsored, unrestricted" TLD proposed by the TF,
nor the recent draft proposed by Mueller(*), come anywhere near meeting
the requirements for a policy development body for an unrestricted TLD
-- in fact, they are simply bald attempts to circumvent it. 

[It is interesting to note that the advocates of this approach oppose
restrictions on registrants because of the perceived difficulty of
defining what a "non-commercial" entity is.  Yet they are perfectly
happy to restrict governance of .org to entities that meet that
definition, and, because it is convenient, ignore the difficulty of
definition in this case.  It is also worth noting the doublethink that
allows someone to say "some registrants have a say in governance of
.org, but others don't" and not think of that as a "restriction".]

It is interesting to examine the proposals of my good friend Dave
Crocker in light of the above discussion.  Dave, as I understand his
position, is advocating that .org *really* be an unrestricted TLD --
that is, not only does Dave advocate that there be no sponsor, he also
advocates that the registry operator and registrars be contractually
enjoined from doing any marketing whatsoever for .org.  I really like
the idea of such a TLD, and in other cases I would enthusiastically
support such an idea, but in the case of .org and because the NCC is
supposed to be an advocate for non-commercial organizations, I can't
agree with his position... 

________________________________________________________________

(*) Mueller's new draft says: "Administration of the .org TLD should be
delegated to a non-profit organization that is controlled by
noncommercial .org registrants and non-commercial 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."


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