[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council Task Force ORG policy

[Milton Mueller]

Actually there is a lot of room for "innovative" proposals 
regarding marketing practices and contractual restrictions on
registrars. (As I said before, however, the registrars will
oppose ANY restrictions.) My preference is to put this policy out 
as is and see what the bidders propose. Public comment can
guide the selection of a best candidate.

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> 10/04/01 08:27AM >>>
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 

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss