Re: [council] Re: Suggestion re .org TF report

[Cary Karp <ck@nic.museum>]

Quoting Milton:

> There is, however, another way to meet Louis' insistence on a
> division of all TLDs into the categories "sponsored" or
> "unsponsored." And that is to make newOrg conform more
> completely to the sponsored model, by employing a CEDRP and by
> delegating to the sponsoring organization the authority to come
> up with its own WHOIS policy. I have also put that alternative
> before my constituency and hope to receive some feedback soon.

Perhaps we should turn our attention completely away from the way we
are labelling things and take a closer look at what needs the
labelling. As I understand it, the .org TF wants, (a) to establish
compelling means for ensuring that the largest portion of the .org
registrant base lies within the non-commercial sector, and (b), to
do this without any formal instruments of prescription or
proscription. Although doing both things simultaneously is far from
an easy task, there is nothing inherently contradictory about the
two goals.

Although perhaps the most daunting, this was not the only challenge
that confronted the TF. Had we been successful in reaching all our
goals, the present discussion wouldn't be taking place. I'm not sure
that I can add much to it beyond what I said in my previous
contributions, which can be found in the NC-ORG distribution list
archives. Having just re-read that entire record, it strikes me that
although protecting the pre-existing registrants was one of our
prime concerns, we only considered one way of doing this -- by not
having any restrictions, whatsoever, on who may register in .org.

A simple alternative might be to require the new operator to exempt
all pre-exisiting registrants in .org from any restrictions that
might be introduced in the new .org policy. This would address one
of the primary legacy concerns without imposing any constraint on
the ability of the new policy to include some clear statement of the
scope of its target community. It might then also be possible for
this and any other entry level requirements, to be stated in as
binding terms as the new operator and the ICANN Board may feel
appropriate, and labelled thereafter.

/Cary