[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council Task Force ORG policy

[Adam Peake]

I support ORG being sponsored and unrestricted.  But, is it a good 
idea at this stage to deny any opportunity for innovation wrt some 
kind of restriction beyond end user choice?

What is a "CEDRP"

Thanks,

Adam



>This is the draft of the policy that will go out for public comment.
>The NC Task Force has been working together reasonably well.
>There are some possible tensions around the issue of
>marketing restrictions on registrars, but on the whole everyone
>seems to buy into the specific approach here. You comments
>welcome.
>
>NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
>
>Statement of Policy (v 3.3, October 2, 2001)
>
>The DNSO finds that responsibility for the policy and
>operation of the .org TLD should be delegated to an
>organization that conforms to the following criteria:
>
>1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored, Unrestricted
>Domain
>
>The revised .org TLD should be sponsored but no
>eligibility restrictions should be imposed on the
>prospective registrants.
>
>1a. Sponsored.
>Each candidate Sponsoring Organization (SO) should
>include in its application a definition of the
>relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are
>intended, detailing the specific types of registrants
>who constitute the target market for .org, and
>proposing marketing and branding practices oriented
>toward that community. The marketing practices should
>not encourage defensive or duplicative registrations.
>
>The Task Force specifically requests public comment on
>the feasibility and desirability of using the contract
>between the SO and the registrars to ensure that the
>marketing and branding practices specified in the .org
>TLD Charter are upheld.
>
>Regarding the definition of the relevant community,
>the DNSO offers this guidance: the definition should
>include not only traditional noncommercial and non-
>profit organizations, but 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.
>
>1b. Unrestricted Eligibility
>With a defined community and appropriate marketing
>practices in place, the sponsoring organization and
>the registrars would rely entirely on end-user
>choice to determine who registers in .org.
>
>Specifically: the new entity:
>* Must not evict existing registrants who don't
>   conform to its target community. The transition must
>   make it clear at the outset that current registrants
>   will not have their registrations cancelled nor will
>   they be denied the opportunity to renew their names
>   or transfer them to others.
>* Must not attempt to impose prior restrictions
>   on people or organizations attempting to make new
>   registrations;
>* Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
>   dispute initiation procedures that could result in the
>   cancellation of domain delegations. If it can be
>   implemented in adherence with this principle, the
>   newly introduced CEDRP may be adapted to ensure SO
>   and registrar diligence in the maintenance of .org
>   marketing policies. The UDRP would apply as per #4
>   below."
>
>2. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization
>Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to a
>non-profit Sponsoring Organization (SO) with
>international support and participation from current
>.org registrants and non-commercial organizations inside
>and outside of the ICANN process. It should be
>authorized to contract with commercial service
>providers to perform technical and service functions.
>Either new or existing organizations should be eligible
>to apply to become the SO. A new organization need not
>be formally incorporated prior to submitting its
>application.
>
>Applicants for the SO should propose policies and
>practices supportive of non-commercial participants in
>the ICANN process.
>
>The DNSO requires SO applicants to propose governance
>structures that provide current .org registrants with
>the opportunity to directly participate in the
>selection of officers and/or policy-making council
>members.
>
>3. The Registry Operator
>The entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization
>to operate the .org registry must function 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.
>
>4. ICANN Policies
>TLD administration must adhere to policies defined
>through ICANN processes, such as policies regarding
>registrar accreditation, shared registry access,
>dispute resolution, and access to registration contact
>data. The new entity must not alter the technical
>protocols it uses in ways that would impair the ability
>of accredited registrars to sell names to end users.
>
>5. Follow Up
>The DNSO Task Force developing policy for the .org
>TLD should review the request for proposals prepared
>by the ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination
>to ensure that it accurately reflects the DNSO policy.
>Task Force approval should be obtained before
>publishing the request for proposals.
>
>The Task Force specifically asks that the RFP not
>require a non-refundable application fee larger
>than US$ 1,000.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Discuss mailing list
>Discuss at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss