[ncdnhc-discuss] New .org draft

[Dave Crocker]

At 06:16 PM 1/3/2002 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
>The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
>gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
>divestiture.

Such a basic, broad and frankly disruptive statement requires substantiation.

None is provided.


>  The
>manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary
>consideration,

Having been under the belief that my language skills in American English 
were at least competent, I am nonetheless unable to figure out what the 
heck you mean by this statement, in or out of context.


>1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
>organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We

As Kent noted, the constituency has been unable to provide adequate 
guidance on determining what organizations are or are not qualified.

Therefore, handing them such a requirement is counter-productive.  If 
followed, the requirement will cause delays and increased cost.  If 
ignored, it lessens the utility of the NCC submission.


>1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized non-
>profit entities

"Recognized" by whom?  And why is a new (specially-formed) organization not 
acceptable?

For example, an application by the Red Cross is far less credible than one 
from a new organization headed by Vint Cerf, given the difference in their 
experience doing Internet operations.


>  The bylaws
>should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and participatory
>process by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and
>revised

Oh good.  Let's re-create ICANN.

That is certain to keep .org costs down and service responsive.


>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.

A large number of applicants is not a goal.  Goals are to have a) relevant 
skills and b) adequate financing.

Hence a financial rules should pertain to operational adequacy, not to 
"ease of application".

Also, absent a detailed explanation of why anyone would think that US$200K 
is sufficient, my own sense is that it is frankly off by at least an order 
of magnitude.


>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.

Why?  For any of the above, why?


>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.

There has been no NCC consensus established on this important 
point.  Rather, there HAS been quite a bit of discussion and disagreement 
demonstrated.


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

What they "propose" is not the issue.  They simply must not evict existing 
registrants.


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

Ever?  What you probably mean is that there must be no special policies 
that have the effect of denying these things for existing registrants.


>2c. Surplus funds
>Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.

A not-for-profit does not operate in a manner that accrues significant 
surplus funds.  And jurisdictions for non-profit corporations usually have 
significant rules about his.

So we should avoid trying to replicate policies that are already handled by 
the legal and tax systems of states.


>2e. Definition of marketing practices
>Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the transition,

Really?  Why?  And where is the constituency consensus on this major point?


>4. The Registry Operator
>
>Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry must

This document should not state requirements on the operator.  Stating basic 
service goals for the Registry is one thing.  Stating details about or for 
the operator is quite another.

And uttering requirements about protocols is just plain silly, especially 
when the utterance ignores relevant factors.  Please leave the technical 
work to people who do technical work.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  fax +1.408.273.6464