[ga-org] Re: ensuring 'non-commercial implicit value' in .org
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: [ga-org] Re: ensuring 'non-commercial implicit value' in .org
- From: Jeff Williams <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 04:10:44 -0700
- Organization: INEGroup Spokesman
- References: <F0366C5CB04AD511990E00A0C9602F8F01C020@secure.education-cee.org>
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
From the NCDNHC list:
=================== Copied/reposted from the NCDNHC List ==============
Duncan and all,
Excellent response here Duncan! I have a few remarks and comments
of my own as well (See below Duncans comments)
Pruett, Duncan wrote:
> Having not paid attention to the list all weekend, I must respond to some of
> the points raised, even though Milton has moved us onto discussion of
> consensus points:
> > Kent wrote:
> > If by "globally acceptable" you mean "unanimously supported" then I
> > agree, but I don't think that is a criteria that any plan will meet,
> > and hence it is not interesting.
> > As far as "globally applicable" is concerned, your belief is
> > simply not credible.
> My apologies for having prompted you to reply on this point. Having myself
> been heavily involved in the preparation of a proposal for the sponsored TLD
> ".union", I know that restrictions, in principle, can be "applicable". I
> should have chosen my words more carefully.
> As for "globally acceptable" - any definition of "non-commercial" would be
> too arbitrary, and therefore not acceptible on the basis of consensus.
Agreed. And this is an important and central point as it applies to
.ORG and it's future.
> don't understand consensus to mean "unanimously supported". I would opt for
> David Johnson's definition (laid out in his paper presented to the GA in
> "[consensus means that] almost everyone substantially impacted by a policy
> is willing to go along with it, and that opposition is so minor or
> irrational or limited to those without a substantial stake that it can
> justifiably be overridden"
I suppose one would have to define the meaning of substantial as it
applies to stakeholders. But otherwise this is a pretty good
or at least as good as any I have seen in some time. However it should
be understood that without open participation of any and all
which does not exist now, and the ability to Measure with a vote, it is
difficult to be able to declare any "Consensus" on any issue...
> As far as I can tell, you are the only person who now argues for a
> restrictive approach. I am willing to stand corrected.
Well maybe not the ONLY (Dave Crocker comes to mind here) but
certainly Kent's position is in the minority. However again a vote
needs to be taken on this issue or a resolution respective or
of the dispensation of .ORG, to be sure.
> If more NCDNHC
> members support this they should perhaps come forward, in response to
> Alejandro's provocative suggestion that there may still be some mileage in
> this idea. If not, let's accept that restrictions on ".org" were discussed
> and rejected by "almost everyone".
I can for one except this. But to be sure, it would be best to take
a vote on this single issue regarding .ORG.
> > Rob Courtney wrote:
> > Maintaining that identity *could* include active
> > promotion efforts (i.e., marketing), but it could also include other,
> > more passive options. We could, for example, urge that the .org
> > contract include a fiduciary responsibility on the part of the .org
> > registry operator to promote a certain set of values.
> > One idea, as some have already suggested, would be for .org to have a
> > non-commercial policy board to ensure that registry policies stay
> > consistent with a given set of values. That would, to a certain
> > extent, assist in the branding of .org, without an active marketing
> > campaign.
> This is perhaps a good direction in which to take discussion. If there's
> little support for restrictions, then can we explore the level of support
> and applicability (certainly relevant here) of policies which are NOT based
> on restrictions?
> > Kent wrote:
> > "End-user self-selection" is equivalent to ".org should be an
> > unrestricted TLD". If the NCC feels that .org should be an
> > unrestricted TLD, then of course the NCC has no particular standing in
> > how .org should be operated, and we needn't continue trying
> > to pretend that there is any point in the NCC discussing this matter.
> This suggests that the only way of retaining the non-commercial character of
> ".org" is through restrictions. This suggests that restrictions are the only
> policy tools available to TLD operators. It's like saying that Belgians, who
> recently removed restrictions on registration in ".be", should have no
> further interest or say in running it. At the same time, the Belgian
> government (which is on the board of the entity running ".be") has gone
> through a rebranding exercise which is based heavily on the Belgian ccTLD
> (http://www.belgium.fgov.be/). Although the TLD is unrestricted, there is a
> strong identification between Belgium the country, and ".be" the ccTLD.
> > It strikes me as quite odd that non-commercial entities should be
> > talking about "marketing" the .org TLD.
> It's not odd that non-commercial organisations talk about it at all. On the
> contrary, this talk suggests that many in the non-commercial world have
> moved beyond a bueaucratic/gatekeeper understanding of their role. All TLD
> applicants last year had to submit business plans - the non-commercial
> applicants weren't excused this. It is clear to me that any TLD operator
> would want success, and that success comes from promotional efforts.
> > Kent wrote:
> > Not effectively, if it is an unrestricted TLD. Is the registry going
> > to police 200 registrars all around the world?
> Although it's not clear that enforced marketing guidelines are the only way
> to do this (see Rob Courtney's comment), I don't think that "policing" is
> the correct word for this. One might imagine "post-accreditation
> enforcement" for registrars handling ".org". In other words, the registry
> operators for another TLD (eg. ".com", ".biz", ".info", ".museum" etc) might
> want to challenge a registrar which is clearly trying to sell ".org" to
> commercial entities. The ".org" registry wouldn't need to get involved,
> since the agreement NOT to target commercial registrants could be legally
> enshrined in the registrar accreditation agreement. Other registries (apart
> from the ".org" registry) would have a greater interest in policing ".org"
> marketing policies.
> > Alejandro wrote:
> > Marketing if anything can only be checked after the fact,
> > so it seems that this is not an alternative after all,
> > unless it is more elaborated and shown by example.
> I'm not sure there is a much opposition to policies being monitored "after
> the fact", as long as the policies don't involve restrictions on who can and
> can't register.
> Here's a suggestion for one element of a marketing policy which could be
> enforced after the fact:
> Every registrar would be obliged to make at least one reference to a phrase
> like ".org (the non-commercial domain)" in the sign-up procedure, to remind
> self-selecting registrants of what ".org" is about. It could be required to
> be displayed when the potential registrant has searched to see if a name is
> available under ".org". This might not be a the only way of doing it, but
> this would certainly be easily implementable, and quite enforceable.
> Of course, creative ideas for how to reinforce the non-commercial identity
> of ".org" need not necessarily be decided in advance. Proposals could be
> solicited, which ask candidates to come up with ways and means to reinforce
> the identity of ".org" without using restrictions. Perhaps the NCDNHC/ICANN
> should offer some room to manoeuver for the entity which finally has to run
> Duncan Pruett
> Information / IT Coordinator
> International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
> Tel: +32 (2) 224 0219
> GSM: +32 (477) 861 903
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-org" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html