DNSO Mailling lists archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference

hello all......

it was my inderstanding that the paragraph #1 should read " . The initial
delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit organization that is
controlled by ".org"  registrants.

it currently reads " . The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a
non-profit organization that is controlled by noncommercial .org
registrants. "

before i left the call it was my understanding that the wording regarding
the type of "org" registrants was to be consistant for para #1a & #1c.
paragraph  1c reads "org" registrants but  paragraph  1a reads
"non-commercial org registrants"

ken stubbs

----- Original Message -----
From: "Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>
To: <nc-org@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2002 5:48 PM
Subject: [nc-org] Revised draft - reflecting teleconference

> v 5.2 (January 4, 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
> 1a. The initial delegation of the .org TLD should be to a non-profit
organization that is controlled by 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 support and participation from a significant
number of international 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.
> 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 should propose governance structures for the .org TLD that
provide all .org registrants with the opportunity to directly participate in
the selection of officers and/or policy-making council members. 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
> 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
> 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
> 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 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. Protocols used by the new registry should minimize
transitional expenses for registrars.
> 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

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>