[ncdnhc-discuss] Names Council Task Force ORG policy

[Norbert Klein]

Adam,

do you have any example of what you would suggest in terms of "some kind
of restriction"? I cannot imagine of any which would not require the
setting up of a rather cumbersome mechanism to monitor or supervise
compliance, and I understand from many former voices - also my own in
Montevideo - that this would just be too complicated if we want to have a
fairly open situation, where many on the present users - to give some
examples beyond NGOs:  the UN agencies, the National Assembly of Cambodia
etc. - would continue to feel welcome. Look at RFC 1591 about .org: at
present it is pretty "everything" open for .org.


Norbert
Open Forum of Cambodia

==

Milton Mueller wrote:

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