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

[Marc Schneiders <marc@schneiders.org>]

Milton,

On Sat, 10 Nov 2001, at 16:50 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:

> 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.

I support your evaluation of these points.

-- 
Marc@Schneiders.ORG

> 
> >>> 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. 
>