[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture policy nears completion!

[Don Heath]

At 11:36 AM 1/4/02 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>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.

I hear differently.  I think there are only a few "committed" to the 
current draft - and certainly more that Ken Stubbs who are against.

>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.

 From much of what I have gleaned, it seems as though there is a concerted 
effort to draft a document that specifically would exclude ISOC.  ISOC, of 
course, is a non profit entity and one which would fulfill the role 
well.  ISOC is anything but "commercially focused."

>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.

Well, wait a minute.  Suppose a non profit organization decided to enter 
the fray, they were selected, and then found themselves in a position where 
the registrants voted out the senior management provided by the selected 
organization.  I can tell you that any entity desiring to be selected as 
the sponsoring organization for the .ORG registry, would be at least 
slightly frightened by such logic.

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

This is a little ambiguous.  Are you saying we would reject the Stubbs 
position?  Or the position you are proposing?  I for one, would certainly 
not find myself in opposition to the Stubbs position as reported by you.

By way of full disclosure, I have just recently joined the board of 
Afilias, but in this matter, my interest resides with fully with ISOC.

A few more comments below.

Don


>=====
>
>  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.

I might point out that ISOC fits this role to a tee! ;-)

>  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.

This is VERY exclusive and looks as though it was designed to fit some 
organization that is yet to be formed!?!?!

>  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.
> >
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>Announce mailing list
>Announce at icann-ncc.org
>http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/announce