[ncdnhc-discuss] ORG divestiture policy nears completion!

[Milton Mueller]

The most recent draft of the policy on .org
divestiture is attached to the end of this message.
Your NCDNHC representatives have played a major 
role in drafting this statement and we think it is
a good policy. Hopefully it will be passed by the 
Names Council January 17. We may need to call
on your to express support.

Let me update you on some of the remaining issues.

The current draft seems to command solid support from all
constituencies except Ken Stubbs, who purports to
represent the registrars. 

Stubbs (and perhaps other registrars, but I am not sure) 
is concerned with Section 1a, which states that 
the .org TLD should be delegated to an organization
"controlled by noncommercial .org registrants."

He would like to strike the word "noncommercial."
In other words, he wants to move as far away from
the concept of sponsorship as possible, and possibily
open up .org to management by a commercially focused
nonprofit. I think we can ALL agree that the wording of 
(1a) MUST remain the way it is, and that the management 
of .org should be in solidly noncommercial hands.

Stubbs also opposes section 1c, which specifies that 
"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." Stubbs is allergic to democracy, and argues that giving 
registrants control over the registry management, specifically the 
election of officers, is totally undesirable. He literally said that
it would produce "crazy results" like the ICANN At-large elections.

I think that position, also would be almost unanimously rejected
by members of this constituency. But let me know if you disagree.

=====

 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.i (including corporations, associations
> 
> 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 advDeDecember
> 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.
> 
> 
>