[council] Fwd: From GA Chair, about .org

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

> From DannyYounger@cs.com Fri Jun 29 00:51 MET 2001
> From: DannyYounger@cs.com
> Message-ID: <81.c54316c.286d0f3a@cs.com>
> Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 18:52:42 EDT
> Subject: .org
> To: Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr
> 
> A dozen members of the General Assembly participated in a limited discussion 
> regarding the future .org registry.  As there were far too few comments and 
> an insufficient number of participants, the GA cannot declare a consensus 
> point of view at this time.  We have, however, defined the following as 
> policy questions worthy of discussion:
> 
> 1.  What is the purpose of .org? 
> 2.  Should the .org registry adopt a defined transfer policy that must be 
> accepted by its registrars? 
> 3.  Should the .org registry adopt procedures to discourage defensive 
> registrations? 
> 4.  Should the .org registry be a cooperative owned by its registrants? 
> 5.  Should the .org registry have a Board elected by its registrants? 
> 6.  Should the Board of the .org registry be required to meet geographical 
> diversity 
> requirements? 
> 7.  To discourage hoarding and warehousing, should there be a "use it or lose 
> it" policy? 
> 8.  Should there be any change in current registration practices? 
> 9.  Should there be a revised marketing strategy for the .org registry? 
> 10. Should there be any restrictions on .org? 
> 11. Do we seek to re-balance the geographical distribution of registry 
> locations? 
> 12. Should a .org registry be required to be a not-for-profit service? 
> 13. Should a potential registry organization be disqualified if it has 
> shareholder interest in existing gTLD registries? 
> 14. Should we disqualify any applicant that has engaged in "pre-registration" 
> activities? 
> 15. A commitment to reliability and performance requires substantial capital 
> and expertise; in view of the $5,000,000 endowment, should we accept any 
> proposal that subcontracts services? 
> 16. Should the new .org registry be required to have a lower fee structure? 
> 17. Should the new .org registry adopt a different UDRP? 
> 18. Should the new .org registry adopt strong "privacy" features? 
> 19. Should there be a registry/registrar separation? 
> 20. Should the registry provide an enhanced query service to serve the needs 
> of the intellectual property community? 
> 
> Best regards,
> Danny Younger
>