Re: [nc-org] Re: Version 3.0 of policy statement
potential capture is a high probability in the scenario's as presented here
we need to brainstorm this and, frankly, it might be a good idea to consider
a conference call in the near future to "vet" some of these options out in a
more "real-time" environment
----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <email@example.com>
Sent: Sunday, September 23, 2001 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Re: Version 3.0 of policy statement
> On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, at 00:06 [=GMT+0200], Cary Karp wrote:
> > Quoting Marc:
> > > 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.
> > There is nothing in the current sTLD agreement framework that
> > imposes any limitations on the number of registrars. If they wish,
> > the SOs may state conditions to which an ICANN accredited registrar
> > must agree prior to being approved for the sTLD. I would have
> > thought that this might provide a useful means for ensuring the
> > propagation of the non-commercial aspects of .org but there is
> > nothing that requires its implementation.
> This is true. However, there are already some 2,803,000 (plus some
> 45,000 IDN) ORG names in existence... These are spread over the 100
> plus registrars. This is not a clean slate operation, like .museum.
> It will be far more difficult to get existing registrars under a
> policy than new ones.
> > > 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?
> > The sTLD model assumes that the SO is in the service of the target
> > community. Are you suggesting that there be no SO other than the
> > collective voice of the registrant base?
> Let me backfire: Tell me what this SO is, that is equally capable to
> voice the registrant base.
> > If so, it makes little sense to put newORG forward as an sTLD in
> > the present sense of the term.
> To tell you the truth, I do not care much, how we call it. ORG is
> certainly different from smaller sTLDs like .museum, which have a tiny
> potential registrant base. This means that its organization is likely
> to have different characteristics. There are, I presume, already
> organizations that represent museums worldwide. There is not yet any
> organization I know of, that can be said to do the same for ORG
> users. Nothing even near to it.
> > > Indeed. And though time is short, it would be a pity to let this
> > > challenge pass by.
> > The representativity of a grass-roots SO could easily enough be
> > argued. It would still be necessary to have some form of start-up
> > oversight body before the consensus entity was established.
> I agree. This, however, is not difficult. We could come up with 5-10
> names. Or with a list of organizations that can designate someone for
> the initial board. Or a combination of both. Also, though I very much
> favour elections as the basic method to select the board of newORG, it
> could also be partly selected by existing bodies in the future. The
> problem I see, is determining which organizations. One of the
> advantages of elections is that this problem is avoided. And
> non-organizational registrants, which are many, then also have a
> voice. Elections is a simple, clear and open way to do it.
> Additionally, it is not very 'dangerous' in the case of ORG (as
> compared with ICANN itself). ICANN can, if the newORG board really
> makes a mess of it, always withdraw the delegation...
> > I
> > somehow doubt that ICANN would be willing to provide that service,
> > nor would I expect such a suggestion to meet with widespread
> > approval in the circles most interested in .org's destiny.
> That is perhaps the point, yes. Any plan should therefore be
> good. Shall we make such a plan or let this chance pass? True
> bottom-up consensus of stakeholders, yes or no?