[ncdnhc-discuss] [long] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent.

[Harold J. Feld]

Thomas:

Thomas Roessler wrote:

> On 2002-08-20 15:18:42 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> 

> 
> Finally, one question which doesn't have anything to do with  numbers: I 
> have looked a bit at your evaluation of the probable  "winner" of the 
> entire process, ISOC.  In the "responsiveness"  category, you write:
> 
>> ISOC proposes a number of very innovative services designed to  
>> respond to the needs of noncommercial entities, not just  registrants 
>> generally. ISOC therefore received a High rating in  this category.  
>> Finally, the Committee notes that although it has  made no commitment 
>> to support good works, profits from the  registry will go to ISOC.  On 
>> the arguable proposition that  support for IAB/IETF standards 
>> processes constitutes good works we awarded ISOC a Low ranking in this 
>> category rather than a None. 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, but I fail to find these services.  I find services which are 
> generally useful for registrants, and services useful for IP  owners.  
> But none specifically targeted at noncommercial entities.  Maybe you can 
> shed some light on this?

ISOC was the only applicant to address the privacy issue with ORGCloak 
service.  The description makes clear this was done to safeguard 
noncommercial speakers.  The caveat that it will consult with the IPC to 
implement the service in a way that will still allow intellectual 
property holders and law enforcement to have access to necessary 
information to persue legitimate claims does not negate the usefulness 
of the service.
The ORGSURE certification service would, on its own, constitute a "low" 
on the services, such as was done with ORGFoundation.

I see no services targeted to IP users.

Harold