[ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture

[Milton Mueller]

As an additional comment, Vany's message 
below indicates a lack of understanding of the 
process of developing a DNSO position.
It may be helpful to re-state that process and
explain where we are in that process now. 

The initial NCDNHC statement (linked below)
was developed in June in response to a very
short deadline given to the Names Council and
the DNSO constituencies by the Board resolution
passed in Stockholm. 

That resolution asked the constituencies to
formulate positions and give them to the NC
by the July NC meeting. So we did not have
time for a formal online vote. We operated
by consensus. 

Once those initial constituency positions were
developed, they were used by the members
of the Names Council Task Force on ORG
divestiture to develop a consensus position
for the Names Council (NC) as a whole. 

What we are reviewing NOW is the Names
Council ORG Task Force report. That report
is very similar to the position we initially
adopted. We as a constituency should be
very proud of that - we have taken the 
leadership and defined the position. 

This is why I have trouble understanding
Vany's position. It sounds like she wants
to throw out all the work that has been
done so far and start all over again.
I don't think there is any support for
that, and I don't think it is wise to even
consider it.

At this point, what matters 
most is not the "NCDNHC position," but
the position of the NC Task Force, the
Names Council, and the ICANN Board.
Your comments at this point can only influence
the Task Force to modify the policy, or
convince the Names Council to pass or
not pass the policy. 

If we want to be effective as a constituency,
we have to show that we can develop
responsible policy positions in a timely 
manner, work with other constituencies,
and stick to our positions consistently. 

>>> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales <vany at sdnp.org.pa> 10/24/01 10:03PM >>>
Milton:

On Mon, 22 October 2001, "Milton Mueller" wrote:

> 
> Vany:
> We have already been through two rounds of
> the .org divestiture process
> 
> NCDNHC has produced a document submitted
> to the Names Council several months ago.
> This document answered your Questions 1
> and 4 and there is little point in going over
> it again.
Milton, as far as I know, such document you sent to the NC
still can have modifications, additions, deletions, refinments, etc.
Meaning that still is not complete, meaning that a official position
haven't taken
be taken yet by the NCDNHC by a proper votation process.

The link below will refresh your memory.

http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00519.html 

So please, don't say that such document is an official position of the
NCDNHC because it is not, 
and the membership of NCDNHC hasn't have the chance to vote properly on
them.
 
> Then, the Names Council Task Force achieved
> a consensus among the seven constituencies
> and the GA. This consensus document, which
> also answers Questions 1, 4 and 5, is now
> put out for public comment.
of course I will make my comments in the public forum
 
> The purpose now is not to start the policy 
> making process all over again, but the
> comment on the specific proposal before us.
The purpose of my proposal is not start anything again.  The purpose of
this is that
by once, the NCDNHC sends a complete document as position by a proper
votation process 
on every paragraph.  WHile votation doesn't occures, no one can say that
such and such are
positions of the NCDNHC.

Best Regards
Vany

> 
> >>> vany_martinez at yahoo.com 10/21/01 01:41PM >>>
> Dear fellows:
> 
> It seems the opinions are divided in relation with
> ..ORG divesture issue.  
> 
> I propose to elaborate several "YES-NO" questions and
> vote on every one of them.
> 
> Examples of the questions could be:
> 
> 1.  Should .ORG be restricted to Non-Commercial
> registrants?  
> 
> 2.  Should part of .ORG earnings/incomes be directed
> to fund NCDNHC activities?
> 
> 3.  Should part of .ORG earnings/incomes be directed
> to help to fight the digital divide?
> 
> 4.  Should .ORG be run a by a Non-Profit and/or
> associatoins of Non-Profits organizations?
> 
> 5.  Should .ORG be run by a new brand membership
> non-commercial organizatin that can group all
> non-commercial organizations interested in belong to
> such a group?
> 
> 6.  Should the new REgistry of .ORG run itself
> technically the operations of .ORG?
> 
> 7.  Should the new Registry of .ORG  subcontract an
> organization to perfom technical operations of .ORG?
> 
> 8.  If subcontratation for technical operation of .ORG
> occurs, such an organization should be Commercial or
> Non-Commercial?
> 
> I am sure there are many many questions...The purpose
> of this proposal is to facilitate the input that the
> NCDNHC can give to the community regarding .ORG
> divesture.
> 
> What all of you think?
> 
> Best Regards
> Vany         
> 
> 
> --- Chris Bailey <chrisbailey at gn.apc.org> wrote:
> > 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.
-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa >
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa 
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss