[nc-org] ORG Policy Statement
Elisabeth & Thom
I have to say that I agree with the responses provided and position taken by
I would add my support in stating:
1. This is not the time in the process for more detail in implementing an
2. The TF process has supported the generation of consensus.
3. There is no need to be any more proscriptive as to the "evidence" of the
non-profit organisations responding to the Rfp - that will be judged in the
consideration of the proposals
4. I am reasonably comfortable with the call for "lowest cost possible"
while finding it some what superfluous - if the costs were unreasonably
high, then organisations would choose to register in other domains
5. It is legitimate for the registry to contractually bind registrars to
achieve policy aims eg. not seek defensive registrations
I have added some comments to Elisabeth's in the body of the text below.
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
CLEAR Communications Ltd
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007
From: Elisabeth Porteneuve [mailto:Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr]
Sent: Friday, 09 November, 2001 10:46 a.m.
To: Mueller@syr.edu; email@example.com
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised (final?) ORG Policy Statement
Please see my note inside.
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> Statement of Policy (v 4.0, November 8, 2001)
> The DNSO finds that responsibility for the policy and
> operation of the .org TLD should be delegated to an
> organization that conforms to the following criteria:
> 1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored, Unrestricted
> The revised .org TLD should be sponsored but no
> eligibility restrictions should be imposed on the
> prospective registrants.
> 1a. Sponsored.
> Each candidate Sponsoring Organization (SO) should
> include in its application a definition of the
> relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are
> intended, detailing the specific types of registrants
> who constitute the target market for .org, and
> proposing marketing and branding practices oriented
> toward that community. The marketing practices should
> not encourage defensive or duplicative registrations.
> Regarding the definition of the relevant community,
> the DNSO offers this guidance: the definition should
> include not only traditional noncommercial and non-
> profit organizations, but individuals and groups
> seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and
> information exchange, unincorporated cultural,
> educational and political organizations, and business
> partnerships with non-profits and community groups for
> social initiatives.
> Regarding marketing and branding practices, the
> sponsoring organization may propose contractual
> conditions with registrars that contain stipulations
> designed to support or enhance the distinct identity
> of the .org domain. Consistent with 1b below,
> however, such stipulations should not restrict
> end users' eligibility.
===> Please remove that one:
===>>GF: Given that we are proposing that marketing and branding
rather than restrictions be the method of "sponsoring" then I think
it quite legitimate for the registry to wish to ensure that those
responsible for the registrant end of the registration be under some
obligation to adhere to such marketing policies.
The stipulations also should
> not be so costly to comply with as to act as a
> major constraint on the number of registrars
> serving the .org domain.
In French we would say you are trying here to
"avoir du beurre, l'argent du beurre et du lait de la fermiere".
> 1b. Unrestricted Eligibility
> With a defined community and appropriate marketing
> practices in place, the sponsoring organization and
> the registrars should rely entirely on end-user
> choice to determine who registers in .org.
> Specifically: the new entity:
> * Must not evict existing registrants who do not
> 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
> or transfer them to others.
> * Must not attempt to impose prior restrictions
> on people or organizations attempting to make new
> * Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
> new dispute initiation procedures that could result in the
> cancellation of domain delegations. If it can be
> implemented in adherence with this principle, the
> newly introduced CEDRP may be adapted to ensure SO
===> What is CEDRP ?
> and registrar diligence in the maintenance of .org
> marketing policies. The UDRP would apply as per #4
> 2. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization
> Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated to a
> non-profit Sponsoring Organization (SO) with
> international support and participation from current
> .org registrants and non-commercial organizations inside
> and outside of the ICANN process. It should be
> authorized to contract with commercial service
> providers to perform technical and service functions.
> Either new or existing organizations should be eligible
> to apply to become the SO. A new organization need not
> be formally incorporated prior to submitting its
> Applicants for the SO should propose policies and
> practices supportive of non-commercial participants in
> the ICANN process.
===> I do not undestand what it is about.
We are speaking about a company running a hard business
and able to handle millions of domain names and customers.
If they are efficient and doing good work, they
support everybody. The participation in ICANN process
is out of the scope.
===>>GF: I don't understand this either.
> The DNSO requires SO applicants to propose governance
> structures that provide current .org registrants with
> the opportunity to directly participate in the
> selection of officers and/or policy-making council
===> I do not undestand what it is about.
The policy-making body for gTLD is ICANN. What is
policy-making council ?
Who are officers ?
You refuses to consider valid important and responsible
input on implementation of NEW dot org Registry,
and at the same time you enter into details which
are very curious.
===>>GF: The registry will need to determine its own policies - as
does any business - these are not the same policies as ICANN policies
> 3. The Registry Operator
> The entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization
> to operate the .org registry must function efficiently
> and reliably and 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 new entity must keep the
> cost of registration as low as possible.
> 4. ICANN Policies
> TLD administration must adhere to 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.
> 5. Follow Up
> The DNSO Task Force developing policy for the .org
> TLD should review the request for proposals prepared
> by the ICANN staff prior to its public dissemination
> to ensure that it accurately reflects the DNSO policy.
> Task Force approval should be obtained before
> publishing the request for proposals.
> The Task Force specifically asks that the RFP not
> require a non-refundable application fee larger
> than US$ 1,000.