[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Chris Bailey]

At 12:01 17/10/2001 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote:

>Date: Tue, 16 Oct 2001 10:55:26 -0400
>From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu>
>To: <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org>, <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
>Subject: RE: [ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture
>
> >>> Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> 10/16/01 08:17AM >>>
>Surely, we are talking potentially about tens of millions of dollars a year
>here? Travel subsidy for non-commercial interests would be just one very
>tiny aspect of what could be done with this kind of money. Certainly, I
>would think Digital Divide issues would be a major item we would want to
>use it for, but not the only one. Why not "to support non-commercial
>Internet interests"?
>
>MM ====>
>Anyone who thinks of ORG as a gigantic pot of money
>that can be used to solve the world's problems needs
>to think twice.
>
>Here is a simple scenario to think about:
>
>There will be an application period for taking over
>ORG.
>
>Applicant A promises to operate ORG
>efficiently, use surpluses to improve service and
>reduce prices.

Where would the unique ORG non-commercial character be in that? I thought, 
since it was agreed not to make ORG restricted that its character would be 
achieved through marketing a specifically non-commercial image. It is 
difficult to see how just promising good service and price reductions does 
that.

Also "service" can mean different things to different people. To give an 
example, just this week, I have been involved with a case where a major 
international women's organisation has had its domain name handed over to a 
porn site, because they were late in paying their renewal fee. You should 
hear what they have to say about the "service" of the Registrar, though the 
porn site probably thinks they are doing a great job. Commercially they 
probably are.

ORG should be run by an SO that relates to and emphasises with the 
non-commercial sector. Like the other sponsored TLDs, it should produce a 
"Registrar Agreement" designed to ensure that ORG Registrars also do and 
that they comply with plans to develop ORG as a uniquely non-commercial 
namespace.


>Applicant B says nothing about
>how it is going to run a large-scale, complex
>business but promises to throw millions of
>dollars at global programs to end world hunger
>and put a computer on every desk top in every
>home in the world, even where there are no desks
>and no electric power to plug them in to.

Why is B saying nothing about running " a large-scale, complex business" 
and why make such a caricature of B making proposals for using income for 
important non-commercial use. You seem to be setting up a straw man here.

Let's bring in applicant C, who does give a detailed plan of how to run a 
large-scale, complex business (you seem to assume non-commercial entities 
are incapable of this), but also produces plans for giving ORG a unique 
non-commercial identity by allocating profits to important non-commercial 
Internet issues such as the digital divide.

Surely giving ORG such a unique non-commercial identity is the whole point 
of it being given over by Verisign. What's the point otherwise?

>Which of these proposals do you think is going
>to win the support of the ENTIRE Internet
>community, including current ORG registrants?

I think C's proposal's, given strong backing from the NCDNHC could win very 
wide support indeed from within the non-commercial Internet community.


>As for the registrar issues, again please be aware of
>real, serious political constraints. What do you think
>current registrars are going to think about efforts
>to cut them out of org and establish new, "nonprofit"
>registrars that compete with them in a declining market?

They will scream blue murder. All the more reason why we should prepare for 
a tough battle here. Verisign is giving away ORG as a sop to the 
non-commercial sector, while everyone knows the really big profits lie 
elsewhere. But now the commercial sector is going to argue they want to 
continue to take the profits from ORG as well. Why shouldn't the 
non-commercial sector be entitled to channel the profits from the 
relatively small space it has been given into non-commercial Internet 
interests and issues?

Chris Bailey


>I encourage you all to file comments on this issue,
>but please put more serious thought into the whole
>situation, don't just fantasize about what you would
>do with a few million dollars.