Re: [nc-org] Version 3.0 of policy statement
As promised, some further comment on a few details.
On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, at 18:48 [=GMT-0400], Milton Mueller wrote:
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> Statement of Policy (v 3.0, September 23, 2001)
> Specifically, the new entity:
> * Must not evict existing registrants who don't
> conform to its target community. The transition must
> 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.
Could we add at the end "or to transfer them to others"?
> The DNSO encourages applicants to propose governance
> structures that provide ORG registrants with the
> opportunity to directly participate in the selection
> of officers and/or policy-making council members.
Could this be slightly stronger? As it stands, it can be ignored.
> 3. Operational Criteria for Selection
> 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.
The phrasing may be interpreted as excluding any applicant that hasn't
raised a lot of funds in advance.
> 4. ICANN Policies
> .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. The new entity must not
> alter the technical protocols it uses in ways that
> would impair the ability of accredited registrars to
> sell names to end users.
The new operator of ORG should perhaps have the ability to stop using
certain registrars that refuse (again and again) to take notice of the
> 5. Follow Up
> The DNSO Task Force developing ORG policy
> should review the request for proposals prepared by the
> ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination to
> ensure that it reflects the DNSO policy.
And also participate in the process of selection? I know this has been
shot down somewhere along the road. Is the above the ultimate to
Thanks again, Milton, for all your efforts!