[nc-org] Dot org
Milton and the dot org TF,
allow me to add my opinion (while Grant is travelling and may
not be posting). I believe that Mike Roberts latest e-mail
captures the BC position perfectly and would seem to be close to the TF
consensus. (The published BC position I believe would defer to recent debate
over restricted/unrestricted).
As I understand it the TF wants:
- dot org reassigned to a not for profit registry - dot org marketed for non-commercial organisations - no one thrown out (grandfathering) - registry to follow ICANN consensus policies (whois, udrp etc) - all accredited ICANN registrars
able to sell registrations in .org.
Louis asks to categorise it as either: (a) sponsored and restricted (like .museum) - with devolved ICANN policy-formulation ability (b) unsponsored and restricted (like .name or .biz) - no devolved policy (c) unsponsored and unrestricted (like .com or .info or .org today )- no devolved policy but not sponsored and unrestricted. We can eliminate c) and b) as too wild, no change from the status quo and for the reasons Mike Roberts has outlined. So the preferred option must be (a). What is now left then is a little more thought on what
grandfathering means.
And if the TF is comfortable with the type of
passive enforcement outlined by Mike Roberts.
Philip
|