Re: [nc-org] What a S,R proposal must do

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

Ken:
If you think a "dual registrars" approach is
too complicated do you feel the same way 
about a "dual registrants" approach (i.e.,
grandfathered registrants vs. new registrants)? 

--MM

>>> "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net> 12/28/01 20:06 PM >>>
my personal opinion here ....

this proposed  "dual registrars approach" is far to difficult to administer
and leaves too many potential conflicts open.

for example"

1. who administers mktg policies
2. who decides that registrar is in violation of "guidelines"

this opens up a "huge can of worms" here and becomes far too convoluted and,
frankly, a potential  "administrative nightmare"

not at all practical....

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Marc Schneiders" <marc@schneiders.org>
To: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
Cc: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: [nc-org] What a S,R proposal must do


> Basically the problem comes from the fact that some 'stakeholders' do
> not accept that registrars can be 'blackholed'. I think I mentioned
> this topic sometime back in a message to this list (yes let's keep all
> messages etc. here, I cannot read 5 lists at this time of the year
> either). We could agree on the following:
>
> 1. Registrars can do _existing_ (grandfathered) registrations forever.
>
> 2. If they go against the marketing policy, they lose the right to do
> _new_ registrations.
>
> I think this is quite clear. The SO will have to define how they
> intend to implement two in a concrete way.
>
> M
>
> On Thu, 27 Dec 2001, at 21:51 [=GMT-0500], Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> > A S,R (sponsored, restricted)
> > proposal mustmeet the following criteria:
> >
> > A. Must provide guidance as to what kind of a
> > Sponsoring Organization (SO) we want. (Not difficult)
> >
> > B. Must provide guidance as to how the affected
> > community is defined by, and represented in, the SO
> > (not difficult)
> >
> > C. Must delegate authority to the SO to set policy IN
> > PLACE OF ICANN policy in more than one of the
> > following areas:
> >
> > C1. eligibility restrictions or other naming
> > conventions
> > C2. qualification of registrars
> > C3. dispute resolution (CEDRP)
> > C4. WHOIS
> >
> > (not impossible, but raises many new issues
> > we haven't discussed. Also, whatever delegation
> > occurs must be consistent with the desire of
> > some constituencies to make .org conform to
> > standard UDRP and WHOIS policies)
> >
> > D. Must provide clear guidance as to how to handle
> > the discrimination that must occur between new
> > and "grandfathered" registrations (difficult and new)
> >
> > E. Must be consistent with the TF's original agreement
> > that .org would remain open and that it would be
> > differentiated primarily through marketing and
> > end user selection. (very difficult)
> >
> > I attempted this, but the more I tried to do it the
> > more convinced I became of the simplicity and wisdom of
> > the U,U model. I am not going to ruin any more of
> > my holiday season on that task. Anyone else is
> > welcome to try.
> >
> > NOW, here's an important part of this message:
> >
> > If we are to consider the S,R model at all, we need
> > a concrete proposal, based on the original TF report,
> > that meets the above criteria put before this Task
> > Force (not somewhere else) by JANUARY 1ST.
> >
> > I must insist on that deadline, otherwise members will
> > not have a chance to thoroughly read and discuss
> > it in time for the teleconference.
> >
> >
>