DNSO Mailling lists archives


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

[nc-org] Re: Version 3.0 of policy statement

Quoting Elisabeth:

> I found the following in http://www.icann.org/tlds/, under
> "Generally speaking, an "unsponsored" TLD operates under
> policies established by the global Internet community directly
> through the ICANN process, while a "sponsored" TLD is a
> specialized TLD that has a sponsor representing the narrower
> community that is most affected by the TLD. The sponsor thus
> carries out delegated policy-formulation responsibilities over
> many matters concerning the TLD."

At this point, there is only one fully negotiated sTLD agreement.
Throughout its creation, ICANN emphasised that they were attempting
to structure the thing to provide a general framework for futher
sTLD agreements. This is reflected in the two other sTLD agreements
currently in the works and it might reasonably be expected that if
newORG were to be defined as an sTLD, the same framework would be
applied to it. In any case, the equivalent batch of new uTLD
agreements strikes me personally as a less appropriate vehicle for
the principles that are described in the draft policy statement.

Assuming that we are going to proceed along the sTLD path -- which I
suspect might be easier than attempting to devise an entirely new
basis for TLD operation (although that would be an interesting and
extremely useful challenge) -- there are two pivotal notions that
need to be accepted. The first is that an sTLD charter may
simultaneouly describe a clear target community and permit
registration by entities external to that community. (I think that
we should entirely avoid the use of the word "restriction" in our
desciption of this principle.)  The acceptance of this concept is
pretty much of a precondition for the second fundamental notion.
This is that the Sponsoring Organization (SO) need not be a
preestablished representative of the target community. Instead, we
are suggesting that it will be sufficient for the SO to demonstrate
its ability to act fully in the best interests of the target
community, not least by providing the registrants with transparent
and effective means for participating in the on-going development of
TLD policies and practices.

> Coming from ccTLD world - I do not believe the Registry function
> may be outsourced.

In the sTLD world, the SO *must* outsource the registry function.
Our primary task is to ensure that ICANN's involvement in the
operation of newORG is restricted to the delegation of all operative
and policy authority to the SO. I think that the draft policy
statement could be restructured to highlight this better. Rather
than extend the present communication further, I will provide my own
line-by-line commentary separately in case what I say here meets
with objections.


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