[ncdnhc-discuss] Initial Comments on the .ORG RFP

[Milton Mueller]

Sorry for the delay, I was traveling. 

For a number of reasons, I think the best thing ICANN
can do at this time is try to bolster the flagging integrity of
its own processes. That means we ought to be doing 
nothing more than ascertaining that the staff RFP conforms 
to the DNSO policy (and consistent Board directions) 
and does not throw some major deviation in there, either
deliberately or inadvertently.

In other words, we should not be redefining the policy or 
making major additions to it, not at this stage. 

With that perspective, I think that points 1 and 2 are good
but problematic because there is not enough of a 
record or enough discussion of them during the process to 
justify making them requirements now. However, I think
idea #1 is a really good one, so I will put it before the
.org TF and the staff and see what happens. The idea is
not inconsistent with the DNSO policy or Board directions
in any way, and obviously has much to recommend it
as a way of decoupling "fake" non-profits from 
commercial registries. One could view it not as a policy 
matter but as an implementation matter. 

I already tried to float idea #2 during the TF teleconference 
and it got nowhere with staff, so I won't put much energy 
into that. 

Idea #3 - I suspect that both the staff 
and the applicants won't like the idea of the winner subsidizing 
the review of losing applicants. Anybody else have any 
comments about this one? 


>>> "James Love" <james.love at cptech.org> 05/03/02 10:38AM >>>
>
> 1.   ICANN could tell the potential operators to avoid exclusive agreements
> with the Non-Profits, so that any non-profit would have access to the same
> commerical operator on the same terms.

This is an interesting idea. 

2.  Even better of course would be to choose the operator and the non-profit
separately (even if during the same competition), with the operator choosen
on the basis of a competitive bid (based upon low price or highest cash
bid).    WHY ISN'T THIS DONE?  Does the ICANN Staff and Board think that the
price paid to the registry is unimportant, or is this done to make sure the
registry can make big bucks? Or is the competitive bid for the operator
avoided in order to avoid the embarassment (to Verisign and other
registries) of a $1 per name registry price winning a competitive auction?

3.   Drop the $35k application  fee to $1k.  Make up the lost revenue by
charging $$$ to the winner, who gets a $5Million bankroll for being
selected.

Jamie


----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller at syr.edu>
To: <nc-org at dnso.org>
Cc: <discuss at icann-ncc.org>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 12:29 AM
Subject: [ncdnhc-discuss] Initial Comments on the .ORG RFP


>
> Here are initial comments on the .org RFP.
> On the whole, it is in commendable shape.
>
> I am happy with the selection criteria proposed.
> In particular, criteria 3 (enhancement of competition),
> 4 (differentiation through marketing), 5 (responsiveness
> to noncommercial Internet users) and 6 (responsiveness
> to .org registrants) are well stated. In addition, it is good
> that the wording of criteria 1 (need to preserve a stable,
> well-functioning registry) makes it possible for either the
> applicant or a "member of the proposing team" to possess
> the "demonstrated ability" to operate a large-scale TLD
> registry. This phrasing opens the door for greater competition
> and diversity in applications.
>
> We would like to propose some changes, which we
> consider to be minor:
>
> 1. There is nothing in the RFP that makes it clear that applicants
> must keep .org open and not institute some new form of
> restriction or possible eviction of existing registrants. It is possible
> that its status as an open and unsponsored registry is sufficient
> in this regard, but given the strong and widespread support for
> this aspect of the DNSO policy we would prefer to see some
> direct incorporation of that policy in the language of the RFP.
>
> 2. In the "Draft .org Proposal Form" paragraph C36 states that
> "evidence that demonstrates support for your proposal among
> registrants in the .org TLD...will be considered." We would like
> to strengthen the wording to say, "...will be an important factor
> in the selection."
>
> 3. Appendix K, a list of reserved labels, was included as part of
> the contract with the new .org registry. I do not see how this
> can be done, given .org's legacy registrations. ICANN's list of
> reserved labels conflicts with a number of legitimate, longstanding
> .org registrations. Here are some examples:
>
> Aso.org: The Adrian Symphony Orchestra of Adrian, Michigan,
> registered and used since 1997
> Pso.org: The Pacific Symphony Orchestra, registered and used
> since 1995
> Edu.org: registered since 1995 by the MacMeckarna Foundation
> of Sweden
> Com.org: registered since 1995 by ISKCON Communications and
> used for an email conferencing system
> Net.org: registered by the National Environmental Trust
> Nic.org: registered and used by the National Investment Center
> for Seniors Housing & Care Industries
> Biz.org: registered and used by the Bank for International
> Settlements.
>
> My recollection is that all TF members, the Names Council and
> virtually all comments were in agreement that legitimate existing
> registrants in .org would not be evicted or blocked from renewal
> as part of the transition. This seems to be incompatible with the
> reservation of names called for in Appendix K. Perhaps this is just
> an oversight.
>
> If not, ICANN may want to reconsider the wisdom of Appendix K.
> The long-term existence of these registrations calls into question
> the policy rationale behind many if not most of its name reservations.
> It is evident that the Pacific Symphony Orchestra is perfectly happy
> with its domain name, users are not confused, and neither the
> Protocol Supporting Organization nor the stability of the Internet is
> affected by the use of these labels. Indeed, the idea that the
> existence of an "important" ICANN-related label requires reserving
> that name across ALL top-level domains (and even up into the third
> and fourth levels of the domain name space) is not only unsub-
> stantiated, but conflicts with the generally agreed policy that we
> should attempt to differentiate top-level domains. It seems to me that
> there are many legitimate uses of labels such as "ripe" and "iab"
> and that any abuse of these labels to confuse or mislead Internet
> users could be adequately handled under the UDRP.
>
> Due to time constraints I am sending these comments to the
> constituency at the same time as I am sending them to the TF and
> ICANN mgmt. In the unlikely event the constituency as a whole
> wishes to contradict anything asserted here I will let you know
> asap.
>
> --MM
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
>
>