[nc-org] Re: implementation and TF process
> Let me remind everyone that according to the framework that
> is being proposed in our policy statement, the delegation
> will NOT go to an "experienced registry operator" but to
> a <policy authority> that will contract with an experienced
> registry operator to perform the infrastructure functions.
It is probably also worth reminding everyone that of ICANN's two
present models for establishing gTLDs, it is only the sTLD approach
that provides for an autonomous policy authority (under contract
with ICANN and subcontracting with a registry operator).
> Personally, I favor giving the newORG entity the ability to
> exert some control over the marketing of ORG by registrars. But
> I DON'T want to see those marketing guidelines transmogrify into
> costly and difficult to police ex-ante restrictions on who can
> register in ORG.
I am very uneasy about the plasticity that we are trying to inject
into the notion of "restriction". (Note, for example, Guillermo's
reference yesterday to a need to "really enforce the marketing
provisions".) Semantics and enforcement mechanisms aside, if there
is to be any form of control and we do not wish it to be defined and
exercised by ICANN, the only present alternative is by describing it
in a sponsorship agreement.
Slightly less to the point -- having been soundly chastised for
ascribing too much relevance to the applicability of my experience
with the creation of .museum, I particularly appreciated Elisabeth's
observations from the other end of the scale about the difficulty of
maintaining any form of non-commercial financial control over a
large domain. (I take this as an expression of the advisability of
placing primary responsibility for policy in other hands than those
that will be handling the money, even though I suspect that it might
not have been intended as such.)