RE: RE: [nc-org] Discussion with McLaughlin

["Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl>]

Milton, you are very persuasive but apparently in this one I still disagree.

The NCDNHC may be in a better position to determine who is behind each
applicant of a SO and they may submit such valuable information to the Board
when appropriate. Probably the IPC will be better suited to submit comments
regarding IP issues and the cc's as Elisabeth states will be in a position
to contribute with valuable information from their perspective. This also
may be addressed through this task force when the time comes for the review
of the RFP.

I must say that I am also concerned on the burden and all the work and costs
that such a review would entail for the NCDNHC.

Regards

Guillermo   


-----Mensaje original-----
De: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Enviado el: Lunes, 26 de Noviembre de 2001 19:43
Para: gcarey@carey.cl; nc-org@dnso.org
Asunto: Re: RE: [nc-org] Discussion with McLaughlin


Guillermo:
Thanks for your comments. 

On the one hand, I agree that every
constituency should be able to review
and issue evaluations of applications.

And of course all aspects of the proposal
should be open and transparent.

I am proposing something that I don't
think conflicts with those goals.
The proposed "special status" of 
NCDNHC or some other conrgegation of noncommercial
interests was ONLY to issue opinions on the
legitimacy of the Sponsoring Organization
as a representative/sponsor of noncommercial
interests. Obviously the NCDNHC would be
in a better position to do that than the
other constituencies.

Keep in mind that I am not proposing
that this review committee have any 
special rights with respect to the 
other aspects of the application, just 
that it tell the board whether 
particular SO's pass the bar of 
credibility or not. 
 
Does that answer your concerns?


>>> "Guillermo Carey C." <gcarey@carey.cl> 11/26/01 17:48 PM >>>
Milton,

I have consulted with my constituency and I think that version 4.1 looks OK.
Thank you for all the hard work on drafting it.

Regarding Andrew's proposal, we don't agree. There should be an open and
transparent process for selecting the new .org registry operator, based upon
proposals submitted to ICANN and made available to the public (with
appropriate redactions of confidential information). The NCDNH constituency
may have the chance to prepare a report advising the ICANN Board on what
decision to make among the applicants.  So for that matter should any other
constituency or group, including IPC.  As long as the process is transparent
there is no need to make any special arrangement for any constituency. 

Andrew's approach will pobably affect competition in the SO, so we should
avoid these type of arrangements.

Guillermo



  

-----Mensaje original-----
De: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller@syr.edu]
Enviado el: Sábado, 17 de Noviembre de 2001 23:47
Para: nc-org@dnso.org
Asunto: [nc-org] Discussion with McLaughlin


Because ICANN staff must draft an RFP 
based on our policy, I sought out Andrew
McLaughlin, ICANN's chief policy officer,
during the Annual Meeting to discuss the
.org situation.

I received one strong message from him.
The decision criteria for the Board need
to be as specific as possible. ICANN
feels a little burned about the criticism
it received in selecting the new TLD
applicants in the last round, and would
like to avoid any appearance of 
arbitrariness.

Another interesting fact: ICANN
staff does not mind, Andrew said, allowing
the DNSO Task Force to review its RFP
before it is publicly disseminated. As 
long as there is a clear limit on the
number of review cycles (both of us agreeing
that the optimal number is one, given the
time constraints) he has no objection to
running it by the TF. This is interesting
because some one on the Names Council 
objecting to the paragraph in our current
policy calling for TF review of the RFP.
I would imagine those objections would be
dropped once this is made clear.

Finally, Andrew proposed a very 
interesting concept that we may want to 
incorporate into the final policy document.
In keeping with his desire to avoid 
subjecting the Board to vague and difficult
decisions, he suggested that DNSO 
constituencies or external non-profit groups
might play a role in reviewing ORG applicants.
For example, the NCDNHC, or an international
committee of noncommercial organizations 
galvanized by the NCDNHC, might review the
proposals for non-profit Sponsoring 
Organizations and write a report on them
to the Board. 

This could be particularly useful because 
many commercial registries or other businesses
that would like to "get .org are likely
to form their own nonprofit SOs. The ICANN
Board, confronted with 5 or 10 of such 
entities, might ot be in a good position 
to judge which is real and has significant
support from the noncommercial Internet
community. Review by a broad committee of
noncommercial stakeholders might provide
the information they need, at little cost
to ICANN.

Please let me know what you think of this
concept.