[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Re: [ncdnhc-announce] ORG divestiture policy nears completion!
Don and all,
Don Heath wrote:
> At 11:36 AM 1/4/02 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >The most recent draft of the policy on .org
> >divestiture is attached to the end of this message.
> >Your NCDNHC representatives have played a major
> >role in drafting this statement and we think it is
> >a good policy. Hopefully it will be passed by the
> >Names Council January 17. We may need to call
> >on your to express support.
> >Let me update you on some of the remaining issues.
> >The current draft seems to command solid support from all
> >constituencies except Ken Stubbs, who purports to
> >represent the registrars.
> I hear differently. I think there are only a few "committed" to the
> current draft - and certainly more that Ken Stubbs who are against.
From the TF list, your contention here Don doesn't seem to be
correct. Perhaps you are lobbying here? >;)
> >Stubbs (and perhaps other registrars, but I am not sure)
> >is concerned with Section 1a, which states that
> >the .org TLD should be delegated to an organization
> >"controlled by noncommercial .org registrants."
> >He would like to strike the word "noncommercial."
> >In other words, he wants to move as far away from
> >the concept of sponsorship as possible, and possibily
> >open up .org to management by a commercially focused
> >nonprofit. I think we can ALL agree that the wording of
> >(1a) MUST remain the way it is, and that the management
> >of .org should be in solidly noncommercial hands.
> From much of what I have gleaned, it seems as though there is a concerted
> effort to draft a document that specifically would exclude ISOC. ISOC, of
> course, is a non profit entity and one which would fulfill the role
> well. ISOC is anything but "commercially focused."
THere is not wording that specifically excludes the ISOC Don. Perhaps
you should do a bit more closer of a study. In any event however the
ISOC gets most of it's funding from commercial sources.
> >Stubbs also opposes section 1c, which specifies that
> >"Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org
> >TLD that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
> >participate in the selection of officers and/or policy-making council
> >members." Stubbs is allergic to democracy, and argues that giving
> >registrants control over the registry management, specifically the
> >election of officers, is totally undesirable. He literally said that
> >it would produce "crazy results" like the ICANN At-large elections.
> Well, wait a minute. Suppose a non profit organization decided to enter
> the fray, they were selected, and then found themselves in a position where
> the registrants voted out the senior management provided by the selected
> organization. I can tell you that any entity desiring to be selected as
> the sponsoring organization for the .ORG registry, would be at least
> slightly frightened by such logic.
Well they may be frightened for a good reason or reasons. Some of
which they should be frightened. Not because of the "Logic" as you put it,
but because the registrants for whatever reason or reasons don't feel
that the "Selected" management is appropriate or adequate to fulfill the
job requirements. The ISOC, for instance might fit into these sorts
> >I think that position, also would be almost unanimously rejected
> >by members of this constituency. But let me know if you disagree.
> This is a little ambiguous. Are you saying we would reject the Stubbs
> position? Or the position you are proposing? I for one, would certainly
> not find myself in opposition to the Stubbs position as reported by you.
Do I hear a slight personal disgruntlement here Don? I think I do.
However the Stubbs position does not seem to be a wise one or
one that has a preponderance of viable support.
> By way of full disclosure, I have just recently joined the board of
> Afilias, but in this matter, my interest resides with fully with ISOC.
Uh huh. Well this seems to be a bit of a conflict of interest here
> A few more comments below.
> > NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> > v 5.2 (January 4, 2002)
> > The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide
> > community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in
> > noncommercial communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org
> > administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has
> > widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.
> I might point out that ISOC fits this role to a tee! ;-)
Oh? How so? With all of the commercial financial support that
the ISOC gets, this statement would seem to be in error or is
perhaps a lobbying effort for the ISOC to gain a favorable
position for selection.
> > The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
> > gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> > divestiture. Some clear statement of administrative and marketing
> > practices will be necessary but this must not result in an exclusive
> > boundary being set around the community of eligible registrants. The
> > manner in which the normative guidelines are labeled is not a primary
> > consideration, but the framework should include all the points below.
> > 1. Characteristics of the Organization
> > 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> > organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
> > recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views
> > about policy and management, and that no single organization can fully
> > encompass the diversity of global civil society. Nevertheless, applicant
> > organizations should be able to demonstrate support and participation
> > from a significant number of international noncommercial .org
> > registrants. The organization's policies and practices should strive to be
> > responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial Internet user
> > community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.
> This is VERY exclusive and looks as though it was designed to fit some
> organization that is yet to be formed!?!?!
Perhaps you should read it again but greater care and attention to
detail Don. There are a number of organizations, such as ourselves
for instance that would fit this requirement. Unfortunately the
ISOC most likely would not.
> > 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized
> >non-profit entities (including corporations, associations, partnerships or
> > cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal jurisdiction in which
> > the organization is established). Subcontracting of operational functions
> > to for-profit providers is permitted.
> > 1c. Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD
> > that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
> > participate in the selection of officers and/or policy-making council
> > members. The bylaws should provide explicitly for an open,
> > transparent and participatory process by which .org operating policies
> > are initiated, reviewed and revised in a manner which reflects the
> > interests of .org domain name holders and is consistent with the terms
> > of its registry agreement with ICANN.
> > 1d. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit
> > organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board
> > should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in
> > demonstrated financial resources from applicants.
> > 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants
> > 2a. Definition of the .org community
> > Each applicant organization should include in its application a definition
> > of the relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are
> > intended, detailing the types of registrants who constitute the target
> > market for .org, and proposing marketing and branding practices
> > oriented toward that community.
> > The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than
> > simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include individuals
> > and groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and
> > information exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational and political
> > organizations, and business partnerships with non-profits and
> > community groups for social initiatives.
> > 2b. No eligibility requirements
> > Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility requirements.
> > With a definition of the served community and appropriate marketing
> > practices in place, the organization and the registrars should rely
> > entirely on end-user choice to determine who registers in .org.
> > Specifically, applicants:
> > * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to
> > its target community. Current registrants must not have their
> > registrations cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to
> > renew their names or transfer them to others.
> > * Must not attempt to impose any new prior restrictions on people or
> > organizations attempting to register names, or propose any new dispute
> > initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain
> > > delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
> > >
> > > 2c. Surplus funds
> > > Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.
> > > Use of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org registry
> > > operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is
> > > adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some
> > > relationship to Internet administration and policy. For example,
> > > applicants are encouraged to propose methods of supporting and
> > > assisting non-commercial participants in the ICANN process. Uses
> > > intended only to subsidize other activities of the organization or its
> > > subsidiaries, activities that are not subject to oversight and
> > > management by the .org governance arrangements, should not be
> > > considered.
> > >
> > > 2d. Registrars
> > > All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names in
> > > .org. However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of
> > > managing the relationship between the registry and registrars that
> > > encourage differentiation of the domain.i (including corporations,
> > associations
> > >
> > > 2e. Definition of marketing practices
> > > Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the transition,
> > > and new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that
> > > objective. Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and
> > > practices designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract
> > > registrations from the defined community, and minimize defensive and
> > > duplicative registrations.
> > >
> > > 3. The Verisign endowment
> > >
> > > Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5
> > > million endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they
> > > propose to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.
> > >
> > > 4. The Registry Operator
> > >
> > > Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry must
> > > function efficiently and reliably and show its commitment to a high
> > > quality of service for all .org users worldwide, including a commitment to
> > > making registration, assistance and other services available in different
> > > time zones and different languages. The price of registration proposed
> > > by the new entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the
> > > maintenance of good quality service. Protocols used by the new registry
> > > should minimize transitional expenses for registrars.
> > >
> > > 5. ICANN Policies
> > >
> > > The .org administration must adhere to policies defined through ICANN
> > > processes, such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared
> > > registry access, the uniform dispute resolution policy, and access to
> > > registration contact data via WHOIS.
> > >
> > > 6. Follow up
> > >
> > > ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit organizations
> > > to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a
> > > deadline no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection
> > > and agreement process may be completed well in advDeDecember
> > > expiration of the current agreement with Verisign.
> > >
> > > ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names Council to review the
> > > request for proposals (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its
> > > public dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation
> > > with the Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application
> > > fees should be as low as possible consistent with the objective of
> > > discouraging frivolous applications.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >Announce mailing list
> Discuss mailing list
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html