[registrars] Fw: [nc-org] Final Final Report (5.4)

["Ken Stubbs" <kstubbs@digitel.net>]

evidently there were some typos in the report i sent you approx 3 hours ago
..

here is the "revised" document

ken stubbs
----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2002 3:21 PM
Subject: [nc-org] Final Final Report (5.4)


> Some strange interaction between Groupwise and MS-Word
> led to a scrambling of the second paragraph. This is the
> same report, with the technical error corrected.
>
>
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> v 5.4 (January 9, 2002)
>
> The .org registry should be operated for the benefit of the worldwide
> community of organizations, groups, and individuals engaged in
> noncommercial communication via the Internet. Responsibility for .org
> administration should be delegated to a non-profit organization that has
> widespread support from and acts on behalf of that community.
>
> The notions of sponsorship and restriction, as applied elsewhere in the
> gTLD process, do not provide an adequate framework for the .org
> divestiture. Some clear statement of administrative and marketing
> practices will be necessary but this must not result in an exclusive
> boundary being set around 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 to Administer .org
>
> 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
> organization that is noncommercial in orientation and the initial board of
> which includes substantial representation of noncommercial .org
> registrants. We recognize that noncommercial registrants do not have
> uniform views about policy and management, and that no single
> organization can fully encompass the diversity of global civil society.
> Nevertheless, applicant organizations should be able to demonstrate
> international support and participation from a significant number of
> noncommercial .org registrants. The organization's policies and practices
> should strive to be responsive to and supportive of the noncommercial
> Internet user community, and reflect as much of its diversity as possible.
> While the initial delegation should be to an organization that meets the
> criteria described above, the ongoing governance arrangements should be
> open to any .org registrant.
>
> 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 of
> operational functions to for-profit providers is permitted.
>
> 1c. Applicants are encouraged to propose governance structures for the
> .org TLD that provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to
directly
> participate in either the selection of officers, or the election of
policy-
> making council members, or both. The bylaws should provide explicitly for
> an open, transparent and participatory process by which .org operating
> policies are initiated, reviewed and revised in a 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
> demonstrated financial resources from applicants.
>
> 2. Policy Guidelines for Applicants to Administer .org
>
> 2a. Definition of the .org community
> Each applicant organization 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 definition of the relevant community should be much broader than
> simply formal non-profit organizations. It must also include 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. 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 entirely on
end-user
> choice to determine who registers in .org.
>
> Specifically, applicants:
> * Must not propose to evict existing registrants who do not conform to its
> target community. Current registrants must not have their registrations
> cancelled nor should 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, 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.
> Use 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
> relationship 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 not 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 in
.org.
> However, applicants are encouraged to propose methods of managing the
> 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 transition,
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
> (including itself) 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 to ICANN-accredited registrars in different time zones
> and different languages. The ".org" registry should match or improve on
> the performance specifications of the current ".org" registry. The
registry
> fee charged to accredited registrars should be as low as feasible
> consistent with the maintenance of good quality service. The registry-
> registrar protocol should either remain the same as the current ".org"
> registry, or it should match the new international standard for registry-
> registrar protocols being developed in the Internet Engineering Task
> Force.
>
> 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 organizations
> to assume responsibility for operation of the .org registry with a
deadline
> no later than 30 June 2002, so that an evaluation, selection and
> agreement process may be completed well in advance of the 31 December
> expiration of 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
public
> dissemination, and will adjust the RFP as needed in consultation with the
> Task Force to ensure compliance with the policy. Application fees should
> be as low as possible consistent with the objective of discouraging
> frivolous applications.
>
>