Re: [nc-org] wrap up

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

Ken:
Yours is a difficult request to accommodate, 
because I have never gotten a clear indication
from you and Guillermo how to reconcile 
your conflicting concerns. 

Guillermo/IPCC wants to encourage the
new ORG to adopt marketing or 
accreditation policies that effectively 
discourage defensive registrations. You are
naturally concerned about the freedom of
registrars. The compromise language I 
came up with was this:

"2b. Definition of marketing practices
Regarding marketing and branding practices, the
sponsoring organization should propose specific
practices designed to differentiate the domain, 
promote and attract registrations from the defined 
community, and discourage defensive
registrations. Such practices may include 
accreditation of registrars, co-marketing campaigns, 
or other methods. DNSO policy favors proposals 
that promote and enhance differentiation while 
minimizing bureaucracy, enforcement costs,
and restrictions on registrars."

At this stage, you need to provide very specific
deletions, additions or modifications to this
language if you want your concerns to be
taken into account.

Personally, I think the language above is
pretty good. It asks applicants to propose
policies that enhance differentiation while
minimizing restrictions on registrars.
But I am open to SPECIFIC and CAREFULLY
THOUGHT OUT modifications, that come
in the next day or two.

>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 11/28/01 10:16AM >>>
i am concerned about the reference in the policy statement re: registrar
accreditation and suggest that you reinforce the fact that all ICANN
accredited registrars would continue to be able to affiliate with dot org
after the transfer.

as the registrars are currently covered in the agreement with dot org, i
also feel that no new financial burdens or other "barriers to entry" should
be assumed by them  or imposed on them re: future accreditation to the dot org registry.