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

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Kent:

Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> 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.

Exactly!

> 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.

Exactly also, and that's part of my point.
 
> 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.


Totally agree.

The concept of SPONSOR and UNRESTRICTED simply
are not compatible.  The definition given to SPONSORED means also
RESTRICT.
No matter what you restrict or define:  Target Community, who have the
rights
to belong to the governance structure, restrictions on registration or
restrictions
in qualifying registrars...etc.  

> [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".]

And also the idea of RESTRICTED is not oriented to put non-commercials
against non-commercials (as Duncan
made examples).
The main idea is to finally protect the Non-Commercials from
Commercials.
To restrict that Commercials registers a domain name in .ORG.  In the
same
way that .BIZ restricts applications to anything else different to
Business (this is 
part of the .BIZ charter), in the same way .ORG can finally reject
applications 
from Commercials entities that prevents Non-Commercials have their
domain
names in .ORG (the best example I can give is that sdnp.org is
registered
by a commercial entity and is not related with SDNP).  

> 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, 

I understand the Dave's concerns.  The way that the .ORG has being
managed before, he finds would be very difficult to change it.    
But lets remember that whoever be the applicants for .ORG should
address every issue that could possible be a problem in a way that 
the Divesture be as smooth as possible and still achieving succesfully
that be directed to work a target community and protect it inside .ORG 
and having its own policy making process.  Dave, if an applicant 
address such issues in an effective way...would we agree that it worths
to
change from the UU model to the SR model in benefit of the
Non-Commercial sector?

> 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...

Agree with you.  The NCDNHC mission is to watch and protect the
Non-Commercial interests in the Domain Name space. Finally ICANN is
giving to us in silver tray the oppportunity to have a "Home" controled
for Non-Commercials, to work for Non-Commercials, to protect
Non-Commercials inside .ORG TLD and even help to the Registry Operator
selected which is suppoused to begin in January 1, 2003 operations.  The
NCDNHC sector cannot loose this opportunity of gold in benefit of the
Non-Commercial sector the NCDNHC is advocating work for.
 
> ________________________________________________________________
> (*) 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss


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