RE: [nc-org] Policy statement draft 1
On Wed, 5 Sep 2001, at 13:19 [=GMT+1200], Grant Forsyth wrote:
> I don't understand what to "have a real say in the administration of it"
> A registry services is a pretty commodity service and for most registrants
> is irrelevant if it operates smoothly in the background. Is not the trick
> to work towards defining and establishing world class registry/registrar
> services - regardless of the domain - and then "encouraging"/requiring all
> registries/registrars to deliver to such a standard?
The registrants have no interest in whether the registry runs freebsd
or windows, so much is true, as long as it works, fast and reliably (I
will not discuss this further as to what hardware is required for each
The registrants do have an interest in matters like: registration fee
and services. And especially in the way the TLD of which they are part
is marketted, because it influences their image. Now, I am not saying
that a board appointed by/or initiated by several non-profit groups
could not do the trick, certainly not initially. But on the other
hand, what better guarentee do we have that those who 'rule' ORG
defend and take care of the interests of ORG registrants than by
having the registrants elect them? This is particularly important
since there are so many 'old' registrants, organizations and other
entities that have a domain in ORG for so long (relatively in internet
> If you think that there are ORG registry services that should be different
> from other "open" registries, I would be interested to know of them.
Certainly it would be a bad idea to do any of the following:
* anything that results in ORG names being more expensive than other
gTLD names (which would certainly happen if we go for a restricted
* limit services to some (even if the most used/common) protocols like
.NAME seems to plan;
* with all the uncertainty created by the very sudden deal between
ICANN and Verisign make ORG registrants scared about the future of
their Net identity.
Let me put the question the other way around: What is wrong with
letting the registrants in ORG determine its future? More so, since
the matter only comes up because of an 'occasion', to wit the deal
about COM with Verisign. I see no reason to have a non-profit
organization run ORG, when it is not restricted (which is really no go
after so many years), or when it is not 'govourned' in a different
> there is a thought that the cost of registration for "non-commercial
> organisation" might be different to other registrants, I would suggest that
> the cost of registration is minimal (compared to the other costs of
> establishing an Internet presence) and unlikely to be a barrier to
This may be true for you and me, in the rich part of the world. I am
not so sure it also holds for people in Africa.
> Additionally, there is a really problem (particularly across
> different jurisdictions) of defining what is and is not a "non-commercial
I am not at all in favour of restricting ORG. If someone thinks he can
better start a business in ORG beause it is a few $$ cheaper, let him
do so. In the mind of users ORG is not associated with business. It
doesn't even sound good. Unlike COM: come... I am not afraid that ORG
will become a second COM (or BIZ) simply because the registration is a
few dollars cheaper.
Again, I think the whole question about ORG was only born out of the
new COM contract with Verisign. This does not mean, however, that ORG
has to become some sort of unwanted child. Let us seek for new
chances. Even ICANN will applaud this, for it is an ORG registrant...
> From: Marc Schneiders [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 05 September, 2001 9:15 a.m.
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: [nc-org] Policy statement draft 1
> "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
> service functions."
> The new ORG is an accident. We can take this up and try to avoid too
> much damage only. We can also grab the chance born out of this strange
> deal, to initiate something new.
> I have mentioned this before (on the ga org list as well as the ncdnhc
> list), perhaps not in appropriate legal terms, using the word "coop",
> which may mean different things in different countries or legal
> systems. What I would like to explore, or have (also legally)
> explored, is to structure the new ORG in a way that registrants of ORG
> names have a real say in the administration of it. Preferably through
> Though I am not sure that I am in favour of the ALSC proposal to
> redefine At Large as domain name holders (in fact so far I am not
> convinced by the prelim report), an ORG with real registrant input
> might serve also a testbed towards such 'democracy' as Bildt
> c.s. propose.
> -- Marc@Schneiders.ORG