[ncdnhc-discuss] Comments and suggestions on the full text of new .ORG proposal

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi to all:

Below find comments to the full new .ORG draft.

> 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. 

Agree

> Responsibility for .org
> administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has
> widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.

None organization can claim to be acting in behalf of the non-commercial
community
as a whole (unless you are talking about Unites Nations).

Any support concept, should seek to search it amongst the five regions
defined
by ICANN.

> The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
> gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> divestiture. 

The notions of Sponsored Restricted is the best
model in benefit of the Non-Commercial Community that the NCDNHC
advocates to
represent and defend.

Commercial organizations might not be able to register in .ORG anymore!


> The
> manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary
> consideration, but the framework should include all the points below.

It is very important that the model be specified and the framework
be adapted to the existent model.  Sponsored Restricted is the best
model.
But in any case, we should insist in Sponsored.

> 1. Characteristics of the Organization
> 
> 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization ...

I would add the following: 

"...or group of non-commercial organizations
wanting to submit a joint application, provided that all the
organizations
belonging to such a group be non-commercial organizations also...."

>...that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. 

Not agree.  Few non-commercial organizations have this structure and
usually are membership organizations.    This prevents that
non-membership non-commercial organizations also be able to apply.  

Non-membership non-commercial organization also should be able to apply.

I am agree with Rob's language:

"... that is responsive and accountable to 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. 

The Non-Commercial sector is not only composed by the civil society.
So I suggest that the reference of the civil society be eliminated,
since
excludes many other subsectors inside the non-commercial community.
Also lets remember that the concept of Civil Society vary from country
to
country.

"global civil society" should be replaced by "global non-commercial
community"

> Nevertheless, applicant
> organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation
> from a significant number of international noncommercial .org registrants.

I think it is preferable to talk about "composition" and/or
"representation" defined
by geographical diversity (defined by the five ICANN regions) instead
of ask for a "significant support" that no one can claim to have, adding
to the fact that such an statement doesn't provide an explanation about
what it means "significant support" in terms of numbers or in
qualitative terms.


> The organization's policies and practices should strive to be responsive to
> and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user community, 

Where? Around the world?  In the country the applicants are based?
regionally?
Would be enough that the organization achieve such goals in the country
or region the applicants are based?

> and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.
Not agree.
Not all Non-commercial organizations have amongst their
members all the variety of non-commercial registrants that may exists.
This would prevent non-commercial organizations with a proven record
of serving the non-commercial sector or part of it at least, to apply.

I would delete such paragraph.

> 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). 

Recognized by who?

If the spirit of this paragraph is to require that be legally
incorporated in
the country where they are based or registered....
to be legally stablished before the awarding of .ORG shouldn't be a
requirement.
Please, remember that maybe a group of non-commercial organizations
decides to make
a join venture in order to apply for .ORG but before entering in legal
tramits
to be incorporated which usually costs a lot of money and probably in
some countries
takes more than six months or even a year to be legally incorporated.  I
think
those groups of non-commercial organizations should be given the chance
to submit
applications and qualify.


> Subcontracting of operational functions to
> for-profit providers is permitted.
It is not necesary to specify this, since the .ORG Divesture process
includes this already.

Futher what we should strongly search is that the Non-Commercial Sponsor
Organization be also the
Registry Operator or in the event that the Non-COmmercial Sponsor
Organization wants to subcontract then
also it should be a Non-Commercial Organization the one who performs the
task of Registry Operator.

In this way it is more compromise between the development of policy in
.ORG and its operation.

> 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. 

We must remember that the governance structure regarding .ORG Registry
is for the Policy Making in .ORG and not for the overall activities
of the Sponsor Organization as such.

I suggest the following language:

"1.c.  Applications should propose governance structures for the .org
TLD
that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
participate in the
selection of officer and/or council members engaged exclusively in the
Policy Making in .ORG TLD.  

>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.

I suggest to replace "which reflects the interests of .org domain name
holders"
by "which reflects the interests of the non-commercial .org domain name
holders"


> 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.

I am not agree that Non-Commercial organizations has to demonstrate
financial
resources.   There are already
funds to run the Registry Operations provided by ICANN plus one year of
support and operations without cost from NSI.

I suggest it be changed for:
1.d In order to permit the largest number of qualifies non-commercial
organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board
should not require any proof of 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, 

Instead of "target market", replace by "target community"

> 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.

I suggest to replace "It must also include" by "It must also include,
but not limited,..."


> 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.

I am not agree.

I wouldn't rely entirely in the end-user.

The main restriction should be directed to the commercial
organizations.  Simply
a commercial entity might not be allowed to register in .ORG anymore.

> Specifically, applicants:
> * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to its
> target community. 

Agree with David Crocker comment: "Must not evict...."  and would add
"...existing registrants who do not conform to its target community
due to such solely fact.  

> Current registrants must not have their registrations
> cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to renew their names
> or transfer them to others.

This paragraph practically inmunize .org registrants not belonging to
the target community that registered domain names before .ORG
Divesture against any DRP process.

Such a paragraph shouldn't be included.

> * Must not attempt to impose any new prior restrictions on people or
> organizations attempting to register names, 

I am not agree.

This is not in the benefit of the non-commercial community.  Commercial
Brands, Commercial
organizations and Commercial entities in general will be able to
register
their domain names in .ORG in damage of the non-commercial community
that
is prevented to register their domain names only because a commercial
entity registered it 
first, if such a condition is requested.

> 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.

I am not agree.  

The Applicants should have the freedom to propose any
DRP they consider in the best interests of the non-commercial community
in .ORG!

Such DRP should give priority and advantage to the non-commercials.

Also Commercial organizations shouldn't have the right to inniciate 
any DRP process against non-commercials.



> 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.

I suggest, to improove this paragraph, that it should reflect that
certain percentage of the surplus (to be specified later) should be used
to support at least (but not limited to) the following activities
in relationship with the Internet administration and policy:
1.  Support and Assistance for non-commercial participation in the 
ICANN Process
2.  Support inniciatives with the objective to close Digital Divide.

Such surplus should be separated and create a fund for such purposes

Also I would suggest that the Sponsor Agreement requires Independent
Auditory should be perfomed by year
to Sponosor Organization, Registry Operator and the Fund created with
part of the
Surplus.  The results of such auditory should be made public.

> 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.
The Registry should be the only one responsible to produce any material
directed to the differentiation of the domain and this material should
be available for all Registrars for its use.
However, any Registrar that voluntarily wants also to produce materials
in compliance with the strategy made by the Registry is more than
welcome.


> 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, 

This paragraph should clarify that the Registry is the responsible to
produce all materials and marketing strategies.

> and minimize defensive and duplicative
> registrations.

The best way to minimize defensive and duplicative registrations
is by means of a charter that can be used in combination
with any marketing strategy, of course.

> 3. The Verisign endowment
> 
> Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5 million
> endowment from Verisign. 

This paragraph doesn't specify if the requirementes needed are the ones
requested by ICANN or the ones stablished in the Policy Statement on
.ORG

In any case, the requirementes should be the ones requested by ICANN

> Applications should describe how they propose
> to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.

This is not necesary because ICANN has defined already for which
activities
the endowment will be used (for the opeartion of the Regsitry)

I suggest that we requests to ICANN that authorize that part of the
endowment be used to implement
the governance structure that will work in the Policy Making of .ORG

> 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 

ICANN has already a document that specify the minimum service level that
a Registry 
should provide that includes, but not limited to the ones mentioned in
this paragraph.
So I think that this paragraph is not necesary

> and different languages. 
It would be wise to be more specific in this point.  If you mean
Technical Support 
by mail and phone with people speaking in different language, or if in
written
communication, also having people that reads and write in different
languages and scripts?

Regarding Registrations...do you mean implementation of IDN?

> The price of registration proposed by the
> new entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the maintenance of
> good quality service. 

I wouldn't associate quality of service with price.  It is the problem
of the
Registry if they want to offer low price.  Anyway, they have to offer
a high quality service regardless the price they are offering.

I suggest the following modification:

"The price of registration proposed by the new entity should be as low
as possible
accesible for the overall non-commercial community.  Also the new entity
should
commit in provide, mantain and improove a good quality service".


> Protocols used by the new registry should minimize
> transitional expenses for registrars.

This is also already included in the .ORG contracts, so it is not
necesary to
include it.  Also, it doesn't specify which kind of protocols you are
talking about 
(procedural, technical, administrative, etc..).

"5.1.3 Registry Operator shall make all commercially reasonable efforts
to cooperate with
ICANN and the party designated by ICANN as successor operator to
facilitate smooth
transition of the operation of the Registry TLD."

The entire text can be found in
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-org-25may01.htm

> 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.

Just as a comment:
The ICANN policies can difer depending on the applied model for .ORG.  


> 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.

I am agree with the deadline, but also the period for submit application
should be open no less than 90 days.

> 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. 

I am not sure about this...

> Application fees should
> be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging
> frivolous applications.

No fees or a very low fee should be imposed for apply.  This is about
the non-commercial community.

Many non-commercial organizations relies on donations and sponsors.  Why
then to prevent that
good applications be submited because an organization has first to
locate the funds?  Or why
Non-Commercial organizations has to pay at all?

For example: The World Health Organization had to pay for apply to the
.HEALTH TLD $50000.00.  They
lost!!!   Don't you think that $50000.00 could have being used for fund
any vaccine programm in a development country?

Comments are welcome.

Best Regards
Vany


-- 
Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales, BSEE
Information Technology Specialist
Sustainable Development Networking Programme/Panama
Member of the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency
Tel: (507) 317-0169
http://www.sdnp.org.pa
e-mail:  vany at sdnp.org.pa

Are you a Non-Commercial organization and have a domain name?
Join the ICANN's DNSO Non-Commercial Constituency, ncdnhc.icann-ncc.org