Re: [nc-org] Revised (final?) ORG Policy Statement

["Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>]

A few open items remain. Below, I comment on
two issues that Elisaebth and Grant addressed.
I would love to hear from the rest of you.

>>> Elisabeth Porteneuve wrote:
===> Please remove that one: 
---
> 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.
---

MM ===>
This language attempts to make room for 
policy stipulations but also respond to 
the legitimate concern of registrars that
such stipulations not be too onerous.
Registrar dissatisfaction is also a 
major concern for the newORG registry, 
because if registrars abandon marketing 
of .org how will it reach customers? 
This is just a signal that applicants 
may (they do not have to) propose 
contractual regulations while making it 
clear that the DNSO wants light-handed 
rather than draconian regulations. Policy 
making is full of such trade-offs.

MM ===>
Both Elisabeth and Grant expressed 
questions about this:

---
> Applicants for the SO should propose policies and 
> practices supportive of non-commercial participants 
> in the ICANN process. 

EP ===> I do not undestand what it is about. [snip]
If they are efficient and doing good work, they
support everybody. The participation in ICANN 
process is out of the scope.

MM ===> 
Participation in the ICANN process is
very much in scope for any major TLD 
registry. Verisign is a major contributor 
to the operations of the DNSO as a whole 
and of the gTLD constituency. The ccTLD 
registries (such as AFNIC) support ccTLD 
interests in the ICANN process, with both 
money and time. Registrars support the 
registrar constituency. 

Thus, we are imply asking that the ORG 
registry consider support for the NCDNHC 
and/or noncommercial participants 
generally as part of its purview, and
that this will be taken into consideration
in the evaluation of proposals. It is a
trustee for noncommercial interests, not
just a commercial registry. 

It is, I think, in everyone's interest to 
put noncommercial participation in DNSO on 
a stable and sound financial footing. And 
the amount of money required to do so would 
be trivial to a major registry.

Elisabeth, if you still object you might want 
to explain to me why it is "out of scope" for 
a newORG registry to support noncommercials
but not out of scope for the .vi registry or
the .mx registry to support Peter's and OScar's
participation.