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