[ncdnhc-discuss] Re: process for .org

[vint cerf]

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