FW: [nc-org] Revised Statement of Policy
Milton and fellow TFs
Thank you for updating the DRAFT TF position. (I am not sure if I have
forwarded this to you before, but I have lost emails over the last day so
want to ensure that this gets through - sorry if it is a duplicate).
1. I do think we should put this - or some further interaction - out for
general NC input AFTER the F2F discussion.
2. Other than Cary and myself I have not seen much other input on content
and I think Milton that you are right that this needs to be take as assent.
3. I hope to follow up my previous posting of the DRAFT BC input with a
final BC input soon following further internal consultation in the BC -
hopefully it will reflect a FINAL BC position, but might have just be a
As to specific comments on the position, these are noted in [BC: brackets]
and try to reflect the draft BC position to date - as best I can determine
It has been helpful to the BC consultation process to have participated in
these discussions and you will note a shift in position on the matter of a
Hopefully getting some further feedback early is useful and I look forward
to the input of the others on the TF.
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller@syr.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, 29 August, 2001 7:47 a.m.
Subject: [nc-org] Revised Statement of Policy
Fellow TF members:
Here is a revision of the principles based on
your comments. Please note that I fully recognize
that Points 4 and 5 remain disputed by the IP
constituency, and by some members of the B&C
constituency. However, points 1-3 and 6-8 seem to be
basically accepted; correct me if that perception is wrong.
My idea is that we put these pirinciples
out for public comment immediately after the
Montevideo meeting. After reviewing that comment
we should be prepared to make the changes and
compromises that can lead to consensus.
The public comment material will separate the disputed
points from the undisputed ones. I will develop a set of
questions designed to elicit community input that will provide
guidance. I will have that text prepared in time for circulation
among us and the NC in a few days. I encourage your suggestions.
NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
Statement of Policy (v 2.0, August 29, 2001)
[BC: Milton, I think a statement as follows would be useful.
The following statement of policy addresses the divestment of the existing
ORG from the control of Verisign to a new entity. It does NOT seek to
provide policy for the CREATION of a NEW domain.]
1. Administration of ORG should be delegated to a new,
non-profit entity with 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 and
registrants. It should be authorized to contract with
commercial service providers to perform technical and
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.
3. The transition should make it clear at the outset
that current registrants will not have their registrations
cancelled nor will they be denied the opportunity to
renew their names.
4. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the
future development of the name space, .ORG's legacy
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
[BC: Don't understand what "prior restrictions" means - suggest drop "prior"
5. .ORG's original status as a place for miscellaneous
registrants 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
individual organizers, ideas, households, unincorporated
organizations, business partnerships with non-profits, and
other social initiatives.
[BC: This whole para can be dropped. It is unnecessary to talk about
any view as to its current status - having noted that all who are currently
registered may remain, and being unrestricted anyone else may join - why
be concerned to try and characterise what some might choose to
hold a different view on? A TLD does not need to "support" anyone, merely be
open to and or positioned as ...
6. 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: If by "special identify" you mean "non-commercial, organisation" then
If you are going to do this then again, 5. can go.
Not quite sure what you mean by "not encouraging defensive...". If you mean
the registry will not actively try to upsell the registrant additional
registrations in other
registries (as I understand is the case when registering in COM) then fine.
If, however, the
"encouragement" extends to any sort of penalty or differential charging for
a registrant who
also currently holds a registration of a similar or same name in another
NO we wouldn't support such "encouragement".]
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 ICANN's policy objectives.
[BC: Can't see why you would want to "soften" adherence to ICANN policy.
What "special" policies? We would expect a new ORG registry to fully
support and comply with ALL ICANN policies and procedures without any
8. The Chair of 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 should participate in ICANN Board
discussions surrounding the selection of the new registry
[BC: There should be a clear demarcation between policy and implementation
the NC or its TFs should NOT get embroiled in implementation - leave that to
I think it may be desirable for draft selection criteria/RFP to be fed back
whole TF for review given that we have, for once, started this policy
process with enough lead time. Selection though should be left to the