DNSO General Assembly dot-org policy questions

DNSO General Assembly dot-org policy questions

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