RE: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
Ken and Milton
If I can offer some reflections of what I said and meant and also some
suggestions to move forward.
1. Section 1: Initial delegation
I agree with Milton's recollection.
I understand Ken's confusion and concern with the wording "noncommercial
I think all of us - and certainly the BC - support that requirement the
applicant be a noncommercial/not for profit.
And yes, we would expect that the applicant be an active user of the
Internet - presumably as an existing .org registrant.
Suggestion: So as to not introduce confusion and tension regarding existing
.org registrants, lets just specify that the applicant need be a
noncommercial/not for profit. => Strike out "....that is controlled by
noncommercial .org registrants".
2. Section 1c: Who gets to participate in ongoing governance
Milton has correctly made the change to now just refer to "...that provide
all .org registrants with the opportunity...."
This ensures that existing "non-noncommercial" registrants are not
3. Section 1c: Who gets to select officers
Again I agree with Milton that while you, Ken, did raise the issue and
concern as to election of officers (note: I interpret that as "board" not
management) this is a detail that should not impact on the obligations and
commitment of the ORGANISATION to ICANN and the ICANN community.
Having said that, I suggest that we don't need to specify this level of
detail (ie. election of officers) in noting the wish to provide the
community of all .org registrants with the opportunity to contribute to the
governance policy of their domain.
Another option might be that the officers be elected by members of the
organisation running the domain and that membership of the organisation is
open to all .org registrants. <= I am NOT suggesting this as an alternative
but rather to note that there are many ways for the organisation to
structure itself and its governance processes to involve the .or
Let us not specify to this detail but rather to note the wish to have the
opportunity for .org registrants to participate and have the applicants lay
out how they would deliver this.
Suggestion: "Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org
TLD that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
participate in the policy making affecting .org."
Hope this has helped to clarify and move forward.
Manager Industry & Regulatory Affairs
Cnr Taharoto & Northcote Roads
Private Bag 92143
ph +64 9 912 5759
fx + 64 9 912 4077
Mb 021 952 007
From: Ken Stubbs [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, 04 January, 2002 1:31 p.m.
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; Milton Mueller
Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
your interpretation of governance is different than mine here.
i believe that creation of the policies under which the registry management
operates are the principle governance function which registrants need to
have significant input & control over.
it is the function of the management of the entity to operate in conformance
to these policies and as long as the entity does so then there is no reason
for the beneficiaries of the service to question management. i am quite
certain that the RFP & subsequent contract process, will establish
appropriate SLA's and measurements to ascertain compliance.
it would seem to me that the last thing we would want to do is to hamstring
the RFP process by putting arbitrary restrictions like this proposed
"election clause". this would only severly discourage entities from
> Indeed, I am puzzled because it seems contrary to
> your other point, which is that .org registrants who are
> commercial should not be excluded from representation
> in the governance process. How is it that you insist
> on full representation in one case and then insist that
> the same people cannot be trusted to play a direct
> role in the governance of the organization?
> >>> "Ken Stubbs" <email@example.com> 01/03/02 06:21PM >>>
> i also expressed concern about the officers of the organization being
> elected by the registrants and i felt that there was support for this
> position milton.
> i do not believe that this makes any sense and i thought that this part
> assented to by other conference participants. i do feel that registrants
> should have strong input into policy development but letting the
> elect officers of the managing entity is unrealistic and unworkable.
> i know that this point was elaborated on numerous times during the
> ken stubbs
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
> Cc: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <Bruce.Tonkin@melbourneit.com.au>;
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 6:07 PM
> Subject: Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
> > Hi, Ken:
> > No, the agreement was that the "initial delegation" would be
> > to an organization controlled by noncommercial org registrants,
> > (which meets desires of NCDNHC, B&C, and I think others)
> > but pursuant to your requests, ongoing governance arrangements
> > (paragraph 1c) were opened up to ALL org registrants.
> > So in deciding who to give .org to, ICANN will seek an
> > organization that is representative of noncommercials in its
> > initial composition, but the ongoing governance arrangements
> > are completely open to any .org registrant. So that, aside
> > from the start-up, any .org registrant can elect board
> > members, run for office, etc.
> > That was the agreement, I thought it addressed both of
> > our concerns.
> > >>> "Ken Stubbs" <email@example.com> 01/03/02 06:03PM >>>
> > hello all......
> > it was my inderstanding that the paragraph #1 should read " . The
> > delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit organization that
> > controlled by ".org" registrants.
> > it currently reads " . The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be
> > non-profit organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org
> > registrants. "
> > before i left the call it was my understanding that the wording
> > the type of "org" registrants was to be consistant for para #1a & #1c.
> > paragraph 1c reads "org" registrants but paragraph 1a reads
> > "non-commercial org registrants"
> > ken stubbs
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:48 PM
> > Subject: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference
> > >
> > > NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> > > v 5.2 (January 4, 2002)
> > >
> > > The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide
> > community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in
> > communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org administration
> > should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has widespread
> > from and acts on behalf of that community.
> > >
> > > The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in
> > gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> > Some clear statement of administrative and marketing practices will be
> > necessary but this must not result in an exclusive boundary being set
> > the community of eligible registrants. The manner in which the normative
> > guidelines are labeled is not a primary consideration, but the framework
> > should include all the points below.
> > >
> > > 1. Characteristics of the Organization
> > >
> > > 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> > organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org registrants. We
> > recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have uniform views about
> > policy and management, and that no single organization can fully
> > the diversity of global civil society. Nevertheless, applicant
> > should be able to demonstrate support and participation from a
> > number of international noncommercial .org registrants. The
> > policies and practices should strive to be responsive to and supportive
> > the noncommercial Internet user community, and reflect as much of its
> > diversity as possible.
> > >
> > > 1b. Applicants for operation of the .org registry should be recognized
> > non-profit entities (understood to include corporations, associations,
> > partnerships or cooperatives as those terms are defined in the legal
> > jurisdiction in which the organization is established). Subcontracting
> > operational functions to for-profit providers is permitted.
> > >
> > > 1c. Applicants should propose governance structures for the .org TLD
> > provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly
> > the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members. The
> > should provide explicitly for an open, transparent and participatory
> > by which .org operating policies are initiated, reviewed and revised in
> > manner which reflects the interests of .org domain name holders and is
> > consistent with the terms of its registry agreement with ICANN.
> > >
> > > 1d. In order to permit the largest number of qualified non-profit
> > organizations to compete for award of the .org TLD contract, the Board
> > should require no more than the equivalent of USD$200,000 in
> > financial resources from applicants.
> > >
> > > 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants
> > >
> > > 2a. Definition of the .org community
> > > Each applicant organization should include in its application a
> > of the relevant community for which names in the .org TLD are intended,
> > detailing the types of registrants who constitute the target market for
> > .org, and proposing marketing and branding practices oriented toward
> > community.
> > >
> > > The definition of the relevant community should be much broader than
> > simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include individuals
> > groups seeking an outlet for noncommercial expression and information
> > exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational and political
> > and business partnerships with non-profits and community groups for
> > initiatives.
> > >
> > > 2b. No eligibility requirements
> > > Dot org will continue to be operated without eligibility requirements.
> > With a definition of the served community and appropriate marketing
> > practices in place, the organization and the registrars should rely
> > on end-user choice to determine who registers in .org.
> > >
> > > Specifically, applicants:
> > > * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to
> > target community. Current registrants must not have their registrations
> > cancelled nor should they be denied the opportunity to renew their names
> > transfer them to others.
> > >
> > > * Must not attempt to impose any new prior restrictions on people or
> > organizations attempting to register names, or propose any new dispute
> > initiation procedures that could result in the cancellation of domain
> > delegations. The UDRP would apply as per section 5 below, however.
> > >
> > > 2c. Surplus funds
> > > Applicants should specify how they plan to disburse any surplus funds.
> > of surplus funds for purposes not directly related to dot org registry
> > operation is permitted, provided that the registry operation itself is
> > adequately sustained and that the additional purposes bear some
> > to Internet use, administration and policy. For example, applicants are
> > encouraged to propose methods of supporting and assisting non-commercial
> > participants in the ICANN process. Uses intended only to subsidize other
> > activities of the organization or its subsidiaries, activities that are
> > subject to oversight and management by the .org governance arrangements,
> > should not be considered.
> > >
> > > 2d. Registrars
> > > All ICANN-accredited registrars should be eligible to register names
> > .org. However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing
> > relationship between the registry and registrars that encourage
> > differentiation of the domain.
> > >
> > > 2e. Definition of marketing practices
> > > Differentiation of the domain is a key policy objective in the
> > and new marketing practices are the primary tool for achieving that
> > objective. Applicants should propose specific marketing policies and
> > practices designed to differentiate the domain, promote and attract
> > registrations from the defined community, and minimize defensive and
> > duplicative registrations.
> > >
> > > 3. The Verisign endowment
> > >
> > > Applicants should meet all requirements needed to qualify for the $5
> > million endowment from Verisign. Applications should describe how they
> > propose to utilize the endowment and the timing of its use.
> > >
> > > 4. The Registry Operator
> > >
> > > Any entity chosen by the TLD delegee to operate the .org registry must
> > function efficiently and reliably and show its commitment to a high
> > of service for all .org users worldwide, including a commitment to
> > registration, assistance and other services available in different time
> > zones and different languages. The price of registration proposed by the
> > entity should be as low as feasible consistent with the maintenance of
> > quality service. Protocols used by the new registry should minimize
> > transitional expenses for registrars.
> > >
> > > 5. ICANN Policies
> > >
> > > The .org administration must adhere to policies defined through ICANN
> > processes, such as policies regarding registrar accreditation, shared
> > registry access, the uniform dispute resolution policy, and access to
> > registration contact data via WHOIS.
> > >
> > > 6. Follow up
> > >
> > > ICANN should invite applications from qualifying non-profit
> > to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a
> > no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and
> > process may be completed well in advance of the 31 December expiration
> > the current agreement with Verisign.
> > >
> > > ICANN will provide an opportunity for the Names Council to review the
> > request for proposals (RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its
> > dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation with
> > Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application fees should
> > as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging
> > applications.
> > >
> > >
> > >