DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga-org] First Ten Policy Questions

Hello Danny,

Saturday, June 09, 2001, 10:06:40 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Questions:

> 1. Do we seek to re-balance the geographical distribution of registry
> locations?

I do not believe geography should come into play, or be considered in
any fashion.

> 2. Should a .org registry be required to be a not-for-profit service?

No.  The Verisign grant is not worth the negative issues such a move
would bring.  The registry is worth far more than that by itself, and
the funds would not be needed for a viable organization to assume the

> 3. Should an organization be considered for the delegation of more than one
> gTLD?

I don't feel strongly about this one, with one exception.
Verisign/NSI should not be considered, nor should any organization
they are a part of, unless a specific prohibition exists that
Verisign/NSI cannot directly or indirectly control more than 15% of
the stock or voting rights in that organization.

Their long standing monopoly position is justification enough for some
discriminatory restrictions.

> 4. Should we disqualify any applicant that has engaged in pre-registration
> activities?

Define this further, please.   We need to seek an understanding of
pre-registration and what qualifies under that term as we will be
using it.

> 5. 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?

Absolutely.  My understanding is that this grant only happens if the
registry is delegated to a non-profit entity.  I say it be rejected

Subcontracting is a smart idea.  We shouldn't restrict the potential
applicants by forbidding this model.

> 6. Should the new .org registry be required to have a lower fee structure?

No, I see no reason for it to. With well over 6,000,000 existing
registrations, the registry will have well over $36,000,000 in annual
revenue with just the existing registrations, not to mention new
registrations.  It should actually consider dropping the fee,
optionally, in order to encourage more registrations in this TLD as an
alternative to .com.

> 7. Should the new .org registry adopt a different UDRP?

I think this would be a deal killer.  As much as I hate the UDRP, I
think any proposal which seeks to subvert it at this time for a single
registry would meet with enough opposition higher up to be a futile
effort.  We shouldn't use this issue to fight this battle.

> 8. Should the new .org registry adopt strong privacy features?

Define what you mean by this, please.   Whois information is, and
should remain, public.  And full and complete information for the
registrant or their agent for service of process should be mandatory,
as it is currently.

> 9. Should there be a registry/registrar separation?

Yes, the existing relationships are very well entrenched, and any
change such as this would be destabilizing.

> 10. Should the registry provide an enhanced query service to serve the needs
> of the intellectual property community?

Absolutely not.

Best regards,
William X Walsh
Owner, Userfriendly.com
Userfriendly.com Domains
The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net

This message was passed to you via the ga-org@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-org" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>