[ncdnhc-discuss] New .org draft)

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Milton and all:

Thank you for forwarding this to us.  Tomorrow I will submit my comments
specifically in the draft since  it has to be read carefully.

In the mean while, I invite all NCDNHC members to read the Agreement
between NSI and ICANN, specifically the following paragraph 
regarding .ORG Divesture.

"The term of the .org Registry Agreement would be shortened by almost
one year to 31
December 2002, at which time VeriSign would permanently relinquish its
right to operate the .org registry, and an
appropriate sponsoring organization representing non-commercial
organizations would be sought (through some
procedure yet to be determined) to assume the operation of the registry.
In addition, VeriSign would establish an
endowment of $5 million for the purpose of funding the reasonable
operating expenses of a global registry for the
specific use of non-profit organizations, and would make global
resolution resources available to the operator of the
.org registry for no charge for one year and on terms to be determined
thereafter, for so long as it operates the .com
registry. The net result of this would be a .org registry returned,
after some appropriate transition period, to its
originally intended function as a registry operated by and for
non-profit organizations."

The whole agreement can be found in 
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm
and the above paragraph is Section D, number 2.

Please pay attention to some statements as 

"and an
appropriate sponsoring organization representing non-commercial
organizations would be sought (through some
procedure yet to be determined) to assume the operation of the registry"

also please, pay attention to:  "The net result of this would be a .org
registry returned, after some appropriate transition period, to its
originally intended function as a registry operated by and for
non-profit organizations."

So, as all of you may realize there are some facts that we have already
to take in count within the Policy Statement on .ORG!!!

I think this part of the agreement is good because it benefits the
Non-Commercial sector.  We are the NCDNHC!!!
We are suppoused to watch and defend Non-Commercial interests.   The
Agreements between NSI and Verisign is giving us such
oportunity of gold to do it to achieve:  A REGISTRY OPERATED BY AND FOR
NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS!!!!  And this concept
means SPONSORED RESTRICTED.

Then...as a first view I think is pointless to not specify whether
sponsored or unesponsored...etc, if the Agreement between
NSI and Verisign specifies already an "sponsor organization" (means
being an SPONSORED TLD) and "operated by and for
non-profit organizations" (means being RESTRICTED TLD).

Best Regards
Vany

P.S.  After all, the new agreement between NSI and ICANN wasn't that bad
after all

Milton Mueller wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
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