Re: [registrars] Fw: [nc-org] Final Report on ORG Divestiture, v 4.3

["Ross Wm. Rader" <ross@tucows.com>]

Ken,

Is this a final document, or is it presented here for our feedback? I have a
few specific questions concerning the policy implications of a few
statements made in the document. Your message isn't clear whether or not
registrars will be consulted on this draft or whether the time for that
consultation has passed and we have yet again missed it for whatever reason
(a la the gTLD review task force [1]). You mention that we should create a
task force to deal with this - which gives me hope that the time for
consultation hasn't passed. (fingers crossed ;)

In the past the dotorg redelegation issue hasn't been elevated to the point
where the constituency is spending a lot of time thinking about the
implications - this leads me back to the bylaws review. Liz, as I mentioned,
there are very specific things that, left unaddressed, will hinder our
efforts as a constituency (this was to be one of them - consider this a
sneak preview ;), - but I'll table it now.) Other constituency's have put
forward very specific guidelines concerning how task force representatives
should report back to and interact with the constituency - we should examine
this through the review process your propose to ensure efficient
representation of the constituencies interests without hindering the
effectiveness/flexibility of the tf rep to deal with the work of the TF.

Thanks,

-rwr


[1] http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/registrars/Arc01/msg01102.html
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>
To: <Registrars@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 6:09 PM
Subject: [registrars] Fw: [nc-org] Final Report on ORG Divestiture, v 4.3


fellow registrars

Here is the final draft policy from the "org" divestiture workgroup on which
I am a participating member. This document  will be presented to the names
council for review and action at the December meeting.

I worked very hard to insure that this "policy document" provides for equity
& fair treatment for registrars in this transition process but, I can assure
you  that  there is still much work to be done before an RFP is prepared.

As I stated previously, I feel is essential that we registrars put together
a "workforce"  to address issues and areas of the RFP which will directly
impact both our businesses and our  customers.

We need to be very "pro-active" thru the balance of the transition process
in order to  insure that we get a "fair shake" in this re-delegation .

It's quite clear that this will be a major "issue" for us in the upcoming
months.

best wishes

ken stubbs




----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <mueller@syr.edu>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Saturday, December 01, 2001 5:43 PM
Subject: [nc-org] Final Report on ORG Divestiture, v 4.3


This is it folks. I will send this to
the Names Council for consideration at
its December meeting. Thanks for all
your contributions.

====

NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
Statement of Policy (v 4.3, December 1, 2001)

1. The .org TLD Should be a Sponsored,
Unrestricted Domain.

The new .org TLD should be sponsored but no
eligibility restrictions should be imposed on
prospective registrants.

Sponsored domains are normally associated with
smaller TLDs that impose restrictions on who can
register within them. The DNSO proposes a new
and unique status for the .org TLD: a combination
of sponsorship and unrestricted eligibility. This
arrangement provides the optimal trade-off
between maintaining a distinct identity for the
.org TLD and keeping the registration process
affordable, easy to administer, and responsive to
highly varied end-user demands that may be
difficult to classify.

Unrestricted eligibility is required because:
· The population of the .org TLD is already mixed,
 and it would be costly and destabilizing to evict
 thousands of current registrants
· There is no clear, simple, easily applied and
  globally applicable definition of "noncommercial"
  activity
· End user self-selection of TLDs has already done a
  reasonably good job of giving the .org TLD a
  distinct identity, despite certain registrar
  marketing practices

Sponsorship is beneficial because it can give the
noncommercial Internet community greater
influence over:
· The image of the .org domain presented to the domain
  name-using public
· The distribution of any surplus revenues generated
  by the registration business
· Contracts with registrars
· The selection of the management personnel.

2. Guidelines for Sponsorship

2a. Definition of the .org cmmunity
Each candidate Sponsoring Organization (SO)
should include in its application a definition 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 that community. The marketing practices
should not encourage defensive or duplicative
registrations.

Regarding the definition of the relevant community,
the definition should include not only formal
noncommercial and non-profit organizations, but
individuals and groups seeking an outlet for
noncommercial expression and information
exchange, unincorporated cultural, educational
and political organizations, and business
partnerships with non-profits and community
groups for social initiatives.

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 minimize defensive registrations.
Such practices may include accreditation of
registrars, co-marketing campaigns, or other methods.
DNSO policy favors marketing proposals that promote
and enhance differentiation while minimizing
bureaucracy, enforcement costs, and restrictions on
registrars. DNSO policy prohibits onerous
accreditation fees or any other new financial barriers
to registrars unrelated to marketing policy
enforcement.

3. Unrestricted Eligibility
With a definition of the served community and
appropriate marketing practices in place, the
sponsoring organization and the registrars should
rely entirely on end-user choice to determine who
registers in .org.

Specifically, the new entity:

· Must not evict existing registrants who do not
  conform to its target community. The transition
  must make it clear at the outset that current
  registrants will not have their registrations
 cancelled nor will they be denied the opportunity to
  renew their names or transfer them to others.

· Must not attempt to impose any new prior
  restrictions on people or organizations attempting
  to register names

· Should not adopt, or be required by ICANN to adopt,
  any new dispute initiation procedures that could
  result in the cancellation of domain delegations.
  The UDRP would apply as per section 6 below, however.

4. Characteristics of the Sponsoring Organization
Administration of the .org TLD should be delegated
to a non-profit Sponsoring Organization (SO) with
international support and participation from current
.org registrants and non-commercial organizations
inside and outside of the ICANN process. It should be
authorized to contract with commercial service
providers to perform technical and service functions.
Either new or existing organizations should be
eligible to apply to become the SO.

Applicants for the SO should propose policies and
practices supportive of non-commercial participants in
the ICANN process.

The DNSO requires SO applicants to propose governance
structures that provide current .org registrants with
the opportunity to directly participate in the
selection of officers and/or policy-making council
members.

Selection criteria for a Sponsoring Organization (SO):

· Can the SO demonstrate support from a) existing .org
registrants and b) a broad spectrum of noncommercial
organizations and groups? Is the support
internationally distributed to a sufficient degree? In
assessing support, the evaluation must include
organizational and individual endorsements as well as
SO Board selections.

· Is the SO a stable and responsible non-profit organization?

· Do the SO's proposed registration policies maintain
unrestricted eligibility for end users, as required by
the DNSO policy document?

· Does the proposal contain a clear, workable and
forward-looking vision of the targeted community
of .org regstrants? Is the definition broad and
inclusive, as required by the DNSO policy?

· Will the marketing and branding practices proposed
reach the targeted community and encourage registrars
not to promote duplicative and defensive registrations?

· Does the SO have established relationships with
providers of technical-operational services, and are
those providers capable of supporting the required
scale of operations, accounting for the possibility of
growth?

· If the SO does not have established relationships
with providers, has it prepared a set of criteria for
selecting them that is sufficiently well thought out
and detailed to be confident of successful
implementation?

5. The Registry Operator
Any entity chosen by the Sponsoring Organization
to operate the .org registry must function efficiently
and reliably and show its commitment to a high quality
of service for all .org users worldwide, including a
commitment to making registration, assistance and
other services available in different time zones and
different languages. The price of registration
proposed by the new entity should be as low as
feasible consistent with the maintenance of good
quality service.

6. ICANN Policies
TLD administration must adhere to policies defined
through ICANN processes, such as policies regarding
registrar accreditation, shared registry access,
dispute resolution, and access to registration contact
data. The new entity must not alter the technical
protocols it uses in ways that would impair the
ability of accredited registrars to sell names to end
users.

7. Follow Up
ICANN will provide an opportunity for the .org TLD
DNSO Task Force to review the request for proposals
(RFP) prepared by the ICANN staff prior to its public
dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed
in consultation with the Task Force to ensure
compliance with the policy. There will be only one
review cycle. DNSO policy opposes the use of
application fees as a method ofarbitrarily limiting
the number of applications or of financing ICANN.