|
29 June 2001
A dozen members of the General Assembly participated in a limited discussion regarding the future .org registry. As there were far too few comments and an insufficient number of participants, the GA cannot declare a consensus point of view at this time. We have, however, defined the following as policy questions worthy of discussion:
1. What is the purpose of .org?
2. Should the .org registry adopt a defined transfer policy that must be accepted by its registrars?
3. Should the .org registry adopt procedures to discourage defensive registrations?
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 geographical diversity requirements?
7. To discourage hoarding and warehousing, should there be a "use it or lose it" policy?
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 locations?
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 "pre-registration" activities?
15. A commitment to reliability and performance requires substantial capital and expertise; in view of the $5,000,000 endowment, should we accept any proposal that subcontracts services?
16. Should the new .org registry be required to have a lower fee structure?
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 needs of the intellectual property community?
Best regards,
Danny Younger