[nc-org] implementation and TF process
WG-C was a "disaster" because its scope was far too broad, and
because there really was no "consensus" except on the minimal
points passed from NC to ICANN staff.
But ORG Task Force has a much clearer terms of reference. We
simply need to define the policies, and allow applicants to
make bids that conform to them.
In order to protect against usurpation by the ICANN Staff, we
can perhaps add some general caveat that "contractual negotiations
with ICANN should not be used to impose additional policy
requirements on the applicant." (This would have to be worded
much more carefully, of course).
I go through your specific points one by one below:
>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>
First: I understand we agreed (almost ?) that the key issue for
dot Org is to have it unrestricted, but dissociated from marketing
by dot Com, dot Net, and any other tens of dot.
Second: we read from Ken, there is no means to impose any restrictions
on marketing by Registrars.
As both first and second are contradictory, it ends up as
dot Org being twin sister to dot Com (and by extension to any other dot
MM ===> I don't agree. Even under current
conditions, the types of organizations that register under ORG
are quite different from that that register under COM. If ORG
is managed by a non-profit that is targeting a specific community
with its marketing, the situation should improve. Plus, with new
TLDs existing (both from ICANN and New.net ;-) there is
diminished pressure to have COM "spillover" in ORG.
EP: Therefore the only difference will be the perception of the string
"Org" by people.
MM ===> in the world of semantically meaningful, mnemonic names,
"perception of the string by people" is the MOST important thing!
That is, as we say in the US, "the whole ball game."
EP: On Intellectual Property side, are we for UDRP or was it already
MM ===> It will remain in place, fully applicable to ORG as to NET, COM, TV and several other ccTLDs.
EP: Now have a look on TECHNICAL and FINANCIAL matters:
On technical side we want the new dot Org Registry as good as dot Com
Registry, aka VeriSign (as customer I fully agree, the quality is
of essence and must be imposed on Registries-Registrars).
On financial side we want it not for profit (is it correct ?),
whereas the dot Com is for profit. It is the UNIQUE difference I see here.
What is left ?
MM ===> Maybe we are quibbling about semantics. What do you
mean by "implementation?" If you mean that this Task Force defines
the governance structure and registry contract in exhaustive detail and
tells the registry exactly what to do in all cricumstances, it is not possible,
Here is what should happen:
1. We define policies.
2. The staff drafts a request for applications (RFA) based on those policies.
3. The organizations that respond to the RFA propose specific implementations
4. ICANN, in consultation with DNSO, makes sure that the proposed
implementations conform to the policies, and selects the applicant
that best implements the policies.
That is my conception of how the process should work.