[ncdnhc-discuss] New .org draft

[Milton Mueller]

So far, this has come out well. Please note that the
current draft does not specify whether the domain
is "sponsored" or "unsponsored." It simply enumerates
policy objectives and lets applicants figure out how to
meet them. 

======

NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
v 5.2 (January 4, 2002)

The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide 
community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in 
noncommercial communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org 
administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has 
widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.

The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the 
gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org 
divestiture. Some clear statement of administrative and marketing 
practices will be necessary but this must not result in an exclusive 
boundary being set around the community of eligible registrants. The 
manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary 
consideration, but the framework should include all the points below.

1. Characteristics of the Organization

1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit 
organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We 
recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about 
policy and management, and that no single organization can fully 
encompass the diversity of global civil society. Nevertheless, applicant 
organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation 
from a significant number of international noncommercial .org registrants. 
The organization's policies and practices should strive to be responsive to 
and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user community, and reflect 
as much of its diversity as possible.

1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized non-
profit entities (including corporations, associations, partnerships or 
cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal jurisdiction in which 
the organization is established). Subcontracting of operational functions to 
for-profit providers is permitted.

1c. Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD that 
provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly participate in 
the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members. The bylaws 
should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and participatory 
process by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and 
revised in a manner which reflects the interests of .org domain name 
holders and is consistent with the terms of its registry agreement with 
ICANN.

1d. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit 
organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board 
should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in demonstrated financial resources from applicants.

2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants

2a. Definition of the .org community
Each applicant organization should include in its application a definition of 
the relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are intended, 
detailing the types of registrants who constitute the target market for 
.org, and proposing marketing and branding practices oriented toward 
that community. 

The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than 
simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include 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.

2b. No eligibility requirements
Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility requirements. With a 
definition of the served community and appropriate marketing practices in 
place, the organization and the registrars should rely entirely on end-user 
choice to determine who registers in .org.

Specifically, applicants:
* Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to its 
target community. Current registrants must not have their registrations 
cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to renew their names 
or transfer them to others.
 
* Must not attempt to impose any new prior restrictions on people or 
organizations attempting to register names, or propose any new dispute 
initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain 
delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.

2c. Surplus funds
Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds. 
Use of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org registry 
operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is 
adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some 
relationship to Internet administration and policy. For example, applicants 
are encouraged to propose methods of supporting and assisting non-
commercial participants in the ICANN process. Uses intended only to 
subsidize other activities of the organization or its subsidiaries, activities 
that are not subject to oversight and management by the .org 
governance arrangements, should not be considered.

2d. Registrars
All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names in .org. 
However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the 
relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage 
differentiation of the domain.

2e. Definition of marketing practices
Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the transition, and 
new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that objective. 
Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and practices 
designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract registrations 
from the defined community, and minimize defensive and duplicative 
registrations. 

3. The Verisign endowment
 
Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5 million 
endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they propose 
to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.

4. The Registry Operator

Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee 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. The price of registration proposed by the 
new entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the maintenance of 
good quality service. Protocols used by the new registry should minimize 
transitional expenses for registrars.

5. ICANN Policies

The .org administration must adhere to policies defined through ICANN 
processes, such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared 
registry access, the uniform dispute resolution policy, and access to 
registration contact data via WHOIS. 

6. Follow up

ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit organizations 
to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a deadline 
no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and 
agreement process may be completed well in advance of the 31 December 
expiration of the current agreement with Verisign.

ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names Council to review the 
request for proposals (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public 
dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation with the 
Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application fees should 
be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging 
frivolous applications.