[ncdnhc-discuss] Vint on process for .org

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: "vint cerf" <vinton.g.cerf at wcom.com>
To: "James Love" <love at cptech.org>; "ncc" <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Cc: "M. Stuart Lynn" <lynn at icann.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002 10:38 PM
Subject: Re: process for .org


> Jamie,
>
> I don't have answers to all the questions but maybe some and a couple
> of comments.
>
> At 03:48 PM 3/20/2002 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >I have a few questions and comments about the .org process.
> >
> >First, we have been approached by probably four different parties who
have
> >been interested in some way to put a bid in on the .org.   Our own
interest
> >on the .org is primarily from the perspectve of someone who has about 200
> >.org registrations, and who use have a lot more if the prices were lower.
>
> guess a lot of other folks might think the same way
>
> >We like the idea of .org being known as *a* place for non-commerical
domain
> >name holder, since this is what we and most NGOs use now (if they don't
use
> >ccTLDs).
>
> yep - the board thought it would be a burden on the the operator of the
.org registry to try to validate the non-profit nature of a registrant and
so it recommended no restrictions. One would hope that the .org designation
would indeed appeal mostly to non-profit NGOs.
>
> > We also like the idea of prices being reasonable and indeed
> >falling, and we want a reliable operator.
>
> amen to that
>
> > The idea of running .org as a
> >coop, owned and controlled by the .org domain holders, appeals to us, and
if
> >the whole .org thing was done to benefit the domain name holders, I think
> >this would be good outcome, but probably some other outcomes would work
well
> >too.
>
> nothing wrong with a coop
>
> > We like the idea of a non-profit using some of the .org revenues to
> >fund good works, but recognize there will be controversey over who
chooses
> >the good works.
>
> a non-profit has some constraints usually as to what it can spend money on
and still retain its tax benefits, at least in the US. A for-profit is free
to do pretty much what it wishes with its revenues, as long as they are not
illegal and that the interests of shareholders are considered.
>
> > Here too we like the idea of havng the .org domain name
> >holders voting to determine who gets funded, removing any taint of
favortism
> >or bias.  It would be a "fair" way to do this.
>
> you will have to work at figuring out a modus operandi - a large holder of
domain names might have more election weight than a smaller holder under
some rules but not under others one can imagine.
>
>
> >But since our own views are probably not the ones that count, I wanted to
> >know what the process would be to determine what happens to .org.  For
> >example:
> >
> >1.    Does the Board have to abide by the NC .org report?   If not, why
not?
>
> I believe the board has the discretion to act in ways other than those
recommended but it has to have good reason do to so.
>
> >2.    Can the ICANN board do whatever it wants on .org?
>
> see above
>
> >3.   I have heard some members of the NCC are part of some "evaluation"
> >process for .org, that I know nothing about.  Is this part of ICANN?  If
not
> >how does it fit into the process?   Who gets to participate in this
> >non-board "evaluation" process?
>
> I don't have information about this.
>
> >4.   What is the status of the NC task force on .org?
>
> dunno
>
> >5.   Related issue, has the Adcom agreed to open up membership in the NC
> >TFs?  If so, how and when does this happen?
>
> again, dunno.
>
> vint
>
>
>
> >  Jamie
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--------------------
> >James Love, mailto:james.love at cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> >voice +1.202.387.8030, mobile +1.202.361.3040, fax +1.202.234.5176
>
>