[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: ORG divestiturepolicy nears completion!

[Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales]

Hi Don and all

Don Heath wrote:
> 
> At 07:07 PM 1/4/02 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >More responses to Don's comments:
> >
> > >>> Don Heath <heath at isoc.org> 01/04/02 06:42PM >>>
> > > 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 have settled this issue with Ken Stubbs. The current language does
> >not REQUIRE that Board members be elected by registrants, it
> >allows applicants to propose EITHER that, OR election of a
> >policy council, or BOTH. So any applicant that feels the way
> >you do can avoid proposing an officers' election.
> >
> >We will revise the language slightly to make that clearer.
> 
> Great.

The governance structure, I suppouse it is only for control policy
making inside .ORG
and not for control de organization itself...right?  

Because, lets say that XYZ non-profit organization decides to apply.  
XYZ probabley is an organization stablished already for non-profit
purposes several years ago and now they are applying
to .ORG.  I assume that the language above is not about letting
registrants
to control the organization XYZ. The idea is XYZ stablish an structure
separate from their own activities, in order Registrants control the
Policy Making
Process of .ORG.

I think that such language can be clarified by adding anywhere something
like:

"The Policy Making Process of .ORG will be controlled by .ORG
Registrants by
means of a governance structure that applicants are encouraged to
propose"

If the Sponsored model would be adopted, part of the task of the Sponsor
Organization 
enforced by the Sponsorship Agreement 
is actually to settup a governance structure for the Policy Making on
.ORG!!!

> > >>  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!?!?!
> >
> >It seems to be INclusive to me. It asks applicants to gain support from
> >a wide variety of the noncommercial community.
> 
> Well, if you had not clipped out the part I was referring to, my comment
> would be more clear.  Here's the part of the paragraph you clipped.  I
> would have immediately preceded the part you did include above, beginning
> with "Nevertheless."
> 
>   "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."
> 
> My comment was based on the fact that VERY few non profit organizations are
> "controlled" by noncommercial .org registrants!

Agree with you Don!!!  

I think it would be improoved if this paragraph says something like:

"The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
organization or consortium (asociation, or whatever the right
name in English is) of organizations that works for the non-commercial 
community with international representation, if possible, in the
all the five regions defined by ICANN

> >As for "some organization that is yet to be formed," no, this is a policy
> >criterion we would like to be imposed on ANY organization. The new ORG
> >administrator must be responsive to, representative of, and supportive of
> >the noncommercial .org registrant community broadly. Surely you don't
> >disagree with that?
> 
> As I point out, VERY few organizations can make the claim required by the
> full statement!
Agree with Don also here.

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.

Still I have more comments in other statements of .ORG draft.

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