FW: First draft of an ORG policy - please comment

[Grant Forsyth <grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz>]

Milton
I have included comments on your draft which are consistent with the
BC's position on this matter.

Grant Forsyth
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Private Bag 92143 Auckland
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx +64 9 912 4788
Mobile (021) 952 007
email grant.forsyth@clear.co.nz

========


NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE

Statement of Policy (v 1.0, August 3, 2001)

1. Administration of ORG should be delegated to a new, 
non-profit entity with broad, international support 
and participation from non-commercial organizations
inside and outside of the ICANN process. The new 
registry should develop policies and practices 
supportive of noncommercial constituencies. It should 
be authorized to contract with commercial service 
providers to perform technical and service functions.
[BC: Agree]

2. The new ORG registry must function efficiently and 
reliably. The entity chosen by ICANN must 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.
[BC: Agree]

3. The transition should make it clear at the outset 
that current legal registrants will not have their 
registrations cancelled nor will they be denied the 
opportunity to renew their names. 
[BC: Agree - remove the word 'legal', you are either a registrant or not]

4. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the 
future development of the name space, .ORG's history 
of accessiility and openness, combined with the 
difficulties of establishing an easily enforcable, 
globally acceptable definition of "non commercial," 
make prior restrictions on registration a bad idea 
for .ORG in the future. .ORG should continue as an 
unrestricted TLD.
[BC: Don't agree - we believe ORG should be a restricted registry with a
defined 
charter, publication of all registrations, open process for the
international 
community to challenge registrations and transparent dispute resolution
process.]

5. .ORG's original status as a place for registrants 
who "don't fit anywhere else" must be retained. 
While .ORG must remain a TLD for traditional 
noncommercial organizations and non-profits, it must 
also be recognized as a TLD that supports individuals, 
households, unincorporated organizations, business 
partnerships with non-profits, and other social 
initiatives.
[BC: Don't agree - while some might characterise ORG as a catch all for
miss-fits,
that should not be a feature of it continuance.  There are more registries
available now 
particularly in the ccTLDs which have their own "catch alls".  If a gTLD
catch all is required, 
then create one.]

6. While .ORG should remain an unrestricted TLD, the 
new delegee should identify ways to differentiate and 
strengthen the special identity of ORG, such as 
marketing and promotion strategies targeting 
noncommercial uses and users, and by not encouraging 
defensive or duplicative registrations.
[BC: Working from the premise that ORG WILL be restricted,
the suggestion of developing differentiation and promotion targeted at
non commercials is supported.]

7. .ORG's administration must be consistent with 
policies defined through ICANN processes, such as 
policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared 
registry access, dispute resolution, and access to 
registration contact data. Consistency does not mean 
total uniformity, however; the new registry's mandate 
to support non-commercial interests should permit it 
latitude to develop special policies and practices 
suited to those interests so long as they do not
undermine critical policy objectives.
[BC: Agree that administration must be consistent with ICANN processes and
see no reason
that ORG should have any reason to deviate from best practice with regards 
to technical and administrative practices.]

8. The DNSO Task Force developing ORG policy should 
work directly with the ICANN staff in drafting a 
Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit applications for
the delegation, and play a direct and co-equal role 
with ICANN staff in the selection of the new registry 
operator.
[BC: We believe that the appropriate process for determining delegation is 
for ICANN, in conjunction with the Names Council, to establish a
comprehensive 
set of financial, technical and policy criteria to which proposing 
organisations must commit and demonstrate competency in their ability to
fulfil.
Selection should be made as to the optimal fit against all the criteria.]