Re: [nc-org] Re: Version 3.0 of policy statement
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001, at 19:44 [=GMT+0200], Cary Karp wrote:
> Quoting Elisabeth:
> > I found the following in http://www.icann.org/tlds/, under
> > "DRAFTING OF REGISTRY AND SPONSORSHIP AGREEMENTS":
> > "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
There is one big problem: ORG is now tied to *all* ICANN accredited
registrars. It would be very hard to change this. So we may have to
live with the consequences of that. Unlike .museum, which will
be registered through 5 to 10 of the 100 plus registrars.
> (although that would be an interesting and
> extremely useful challenge)
Indeed. And though time is short, it would be a pity to let this
challenge pass by.
> -- 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.
This I find dangerous in the case of ORG. If we go by this road, we
will have no guarentee whatsoever that the interests of the
registrants are served. Showing that one can do it, is not the same as
doing it. Being controlled by the people/organizations that are
involved, is a better safeguard. As described above it would not be
transparant and bottom-up at all in any real sense. It could perhaps
*look* that way. Is that what we want?
> > 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.