[registrars] Summary of today's NC Call ....
A brief update....
There is a proposal to have a Task Force on how .ORG should be managed
once it is split off from Verisign.
As a Constituency it would be good to have some substantive discussions
on this issue. I attach some of the questions being raised by the GA as
they deliberate the issue ... we too should push this forward.
I urge those registrars who have not participated in the WHOIS Survey to
do so ... consultation period closes 31st July. see
http://www.icann.org/dnso/whois-survey-en-10jun01.htm (French, Spanish,
Russian, Japanese versions (soon) available)
Call for representatives to plan the evaluation/assessment of the new
gTLDs. Note this is to _plan_ the terms of reference of the evaluation
procedure rather than to actually undertake the assessment/analysis. We
have been asked to nominate 2 people from each Constituency. There are
7 constituencies (eg 14 potential people) BUT only 4 will be selected.
Finally Verisign GRS has offered a donation up to $100,000 to the DNSO
based on matching voluntary contributions. It would be good for the
Registrar constituency to start the ball rolling with some of the larger
registrars offering anything up to $1000 or so as a sign of support ....
then Verisign will match the donation with a similar amount.... details
are at http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc05/msg00528.html
A great w/end to all
.ORG discussions (GA)
1. What is the purpose of .org?
2. Should the .org registry adopt a defined transfer policy that must
accepted by its registrars?
3. Should the .org registry adopt procedures to discourage defensive
4. Should the .org registry be a cooperative owned by its registrants?
5. Should the .org registry have a Board elected by its registrants?
6. Should the Board of the .org registry be required to meet
7. To discourage hoarding and warehousing, should there be a "use it
8. Should there be any change in current registration practices?
9. Should there be a revised marketing strategy for the .org registry?
10. Should there be any restrictions on .org?
11. Do we seek to re-balance the geographical distribution of registry
12. Should a .org registry be required to be a not-for-profit service?
13. Should a potential registry organization be disqualified if it has
shareholder interest in existing gTLD registries?
14. Should we disqualify any applicant that has engaged in
15. A commitment to reliability and performance requires substantial
and expertise; in view of the $5,000,000 endowment, should we accept
proposal that subcontracts services?
16. Should the new .org registry be required to have a lower fee
17. Should the new .org registry adopt a different UDRP?
18. Should the new .org registry adopt strong "privacy" features?
19. Should there be a registry/registrar separation?
20. Should the registry provide an enhanced query service to serve the
of the intellectual property community?
The following points indicate the direction
in which the NCDNHC is headed. They have been
discussed for about a week and seem to have support
but there may be modifications, additions, deletions
or refinements as additional comments come in.
1. The Noncommercial Domain Name Holders Constituency
has a greater stake in the future of ORG than any
other DNSO constituency.
2. <under discussion>
3. We oppose any evictions or refusals to renew names
currently registered in ORG.
4. "While we urge that ".org" remain an unrestricted
TLD, we do favor identifying other ways to maintain
the noncommercial identity of ORG. These may include
policies related to marketing and promotion strategies
targeting noncommercial users, and may include a
recommendation that ICANN select (in consultation with
the NCDNHC) a broad-based noncommercial "partnership
entity" to act in a sponsoring or advisory capacity.
5. While the .ORG must, of course, remain a TLD for traditional
noncomercial organizations and non-
profits, it must also be seen as a TLD to support
individuals, households, and unincorporated
6. <under discussion>
7. The entity chosen by ICANN as the registry must
show its commitment to a high quality of service for
noncommercial organizations, individuals, and all .ORG
users worldwide, including a commitment to making
registration, assistance and others services
available in different time zones and different
8. While "restricted" TLDs may play a role in the
future development of the TLD space, we believe
that .org's history of accessibility and openness,
combined with the difficulties of establishing a globally acceptable
definition of "non commercial",
makes restrictions on regitration a poor fit for .org
in the future. We urge that .org continue its status
as an unrestricted TLD.
9. The NCC urges ICANN to create additional TLDs
devoted to civil liberties, NGOs, and cultural
entities, among others, as soon as possible,
and to ensure that the redelegation of .org does not
distract from this process.