Subject: GA-DIGEST V1 #976
From: [email-masked] (GA-DIGEST)
To: [email-masked]

GA-DIGEST          Thursday, January 10 2002          Volume 01 : Number 976

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:26:30 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

Hello,

- --- Rick H Wesson <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> dotsplash:
> 
> first of all I don't believe you as you don't sound like a
> registrant.
> first of all you don't use your own domain; you post from yahoo's
> free
> mail service. If you mailed from your own doain it would lend some
> credability to your post.

I'm obviously against dotsplash's point of view, as anyone who has
followed my postings can attest.

However, the issue of using a Yahoo email address to post from seems a
bit harsh. E.g. I use a Yahoo address for a bunch of mailing lists, so
that my main email addresses don't get swamped. Others appear to do the
same (e.g. even Peter Girard of Afternic/Register.com is using a Yahoo
address, which was in the CC: of your post). The issue of identity is
of course important, as having "anonymous supporters" or "the silent
majority" is given little credence. [for myself, I always post with my
real name, and my identity via a web link to one of my domains where
people can use a better email address to contact me, if need be]

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:27:05 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

- --part1_6b.20ad40fc.296f36f9_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/10/2002 11:19:58 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I did not write the above -- I was disputing it. I think you might have
> been confused by the quotes within quotes, misattributing the source.
> 

My apologies !  The source was attributed to you by mistake .. 

- --part1_6b.20ad40fc.296f36f9_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/10/2002 11:19:58 AM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I did not write the above -- I was disputing it. I think you might have
<BR>been confused by the quotes within quotes, misattributing the source.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>My apologies ! &nbsp;The source was attributed to you by mistake .. </FONT></HTML>

- --part1_6b.20ad40fc.296f36f9_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:29:26 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

Hello,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
> In a message dated 1/10/2002 11:19:58 AM Central Standard Time, 
> [email-masked] writes:
> 
> 
> > I did not write the above -- I was disputing it. I think you might
> have
> > been confused by the quotes within quotes, misattributing the
> source.
> > 
> 
> My apologies !  The source was attributed to you by mistake .. 

Thanks Jess. No harm done. Ironically I was in full agreement with you
about the term. :)

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/ 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:36:08 EST
From: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

- --part1_8b.11fe69e4.296f3918_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 1/10/2002 11:19:58 AM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> I most certainly do know what financial derivatives are (that's what my
> specialty is, financial derivatives at the Ph.D. level, including
> publications). The term shouldn't have had a place in the discussion at
> all, and I didn't introduce it.
> 

Perhaps it is time we setup an Internet Futures and Options Exchange!   :)  

- --part1_8b.11fe69e4.296f3918_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT  SIZE=2>In a message dated 1/10/2002 11:19:58 AM Central Standard Time, [email-masked] writes:
<BR>
<BR>
<BR><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I most certainly do know what financial derivatives are (that's what my
<BR>specialty is, financial derivatives at the Ph.D. level, including
<BR>publications). The term shouldn't have had a place in the discussion at
<BR>all, and I didn't introduce it.
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=3 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"></BLOCKQUOTE>
<BR></FONT><FONT  COLOR="#000000" SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">
<BR>Perhaps it is time we setup an Internet Futures and Options Exchange! &nbsp;&nbsp;:) &nbsp;</FONT></HTML>

- --part1_8b.11fe69e4.296f3918_boundary--
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 10:41:57 -0800 (PST)
From: George Kirikos <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Comparison

Hello Jess,

- --- [email-masked] wrote:
>  George Kirikos wrote;
> <<In the end it
> would seem to lead (at least in one path) to a real-estate type
> model,
> where registrars are more like Real Estate brokers and trustees,
> getting commissions on sales and thus enhancing the allocational
> efficiency. >>
> 
> I do not see how any comparison can be made.  First of all the sites
> are NOT 
> owned by Verisign nor Icann, even tho they seem to think they have a
> monoply
> over them.   RE brokers are contracted by individual property owners.

I wasn't comparing the current situation in the domain industry to real
estate, by all means. What I was doing was following the line of
reasoning in Elliot Noss' post, and seeing where it led in terms of
future hypothetical models. I agree with you completely as to how
things are now, and wouldn't want Verisign, Registrars or ICANN to have
the power/ownership (more power to registrants/consumers!).

> << That would obviously be a radical change from what exists
> today. There's no empirical evidence that the amount of turnover in
> the
> secondary market could keep all the registrars in business, either,
> in
> that real-estate type model. Registrars depend on thr "on going"
> registration cash flow to stay alive; moving to a system where all
> the
> fees are mostly up front be quite a shock. It might also enhance the
> Verisign monopoly, or at least magnify monopolistic concerns at many
> levels, which is a bad thing.>>
> 
> Network Solutions has had  anti-trust charges against them before and
> it is 
> probably just a matter of time before Verisign (which owns NSI) will
> face the 
> same charges.  In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if there isn't
> eventually an 
> investigation on stock manipulation, insider trading and price
> fixing.

Now that the case of the US vs. Microsoft is nearly over, I imagine
Verisign would be one of the places regulators might wish to dig
around, given the complaints we've seen about trying to monopolize
markets, or leveraging the monopoly in one segment (domain name
registry services) to try to take over related markets. There are
parallels to the Windows/Internet Explorer matter, and its impact on
Netscape, or how Microsoft forces its distributors (computer
manufacturers) to setup Windows in a certain restrictive manner,
thwarting competition and giving it an inside advantage.

Sincerely,

George Kirikos
http://www.kirikos.com/

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:19:26 -0500
From: "Ross Wm. Rader" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

>
>
> Perhaps it is time we setup an Internet Futures and Options Exchange!   :)

Like the WLS?

- -rwr

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 20:23:18 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] .ORG NC Task Force (Final Draft (v 5.4)): Comments?

Some people on this list have already commented on the pre-final
draft. Here is the final one. The changes between the two are
described by Milton Mueller as follows:

"Probably the only one of significance is that 
the words "controlled by noncommercial registrants" in 1a
has been replaced by "noncommercial in orientation and 
the initial board of which includes substantial representation 
of noncommercial .org registrants." 
 
Also section 4 now makes it clear that the registry operator 
need not be a separate organization from the management
organization, a minor point requested by the registrars."

Additional comments (or new ones), please as soon as possible. The NC
will discuss (and approve, we hope) this report in a few days.

- -- 
[email-masked]

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:30:57 -0500
From: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [nc-org] Final Draft (v 5.4)

NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
v 5.4 (January 10, 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 
practices will be necessary but this must not result 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 either 
directly participate in 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.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:48:25 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Re: [icann-delete] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500 WLS support of lack thereof?

Ross and all assembly members,

Ross Wm. Rader wrote:

>

- - Large snippage -

>
>
> I believe that the decision is solely up to VGRS and ICANN. Fortunately,
> ICANN decisions are usually based (to varying degrees) on the consultations
> with affected stakeholders and other participants in the ICANN process. This
> is not something that you can talk away because it is convenient for you and
> the other "99% of website owners that support WLS".

  Can you demonstrate your claim here that 99% of web site owners
support WLS?  I don't believe you can Ross..  Can you demonstrate
that a majority of web site owners support WLS that are participating
Stakeholders in the ICANN experiment?  I don't think you can...
 I am fairly sure I can demonstrate that our members do not support it,
although we have not taken a vote on it yet.

>
>
> -rwr
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:00:32 -0800
From: Jeff Williams <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:53:53 -0500

Jess, George and all assembly members,

  George is quite right that he did not introduce the term in this
thread of  "Derivatives".  I introduced the term as comparison to
one of George's posts for comparison purposes.  I disagree
with Goerge that the term " Derivatives " should not have been
introduced.  Word parsing at this level of granularity is a pointless
and argumentative exercise at best.  I would suggest discontinuing it
post haste.

George Kirikos wrote:

> Dear Jess,
>
> --- [email-masked] wrote:
> > In a message dated 1/10/2002 1:54:51 AM Central Standard Time,
> > [email-masked] writes:
> >
> >
> > > Given that yes these other potential derivatives
> > > > ( Using a wall street term here )
>
> I did not write the above -- I was disputing it. I think you might have
> been confused by the quotes within quotes, misattributing the source.
>
> > Then perhaps you should learn what the term means!  There is
>
> I most certainly do know what financial derivatives are (that's what my
> specialty is, financial derivatives at the Ph.D. level, including
> publications). The term shouldn't have had a place in the discussion at
> all, and I didn't introduce it.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> George Kirikos
> http://www.kirikos.com/
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Send FREE video emails in Yahoo! Mail!
> http://promo.yahoo.com/videomail/
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,
- --
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [email-masked]
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 12:40:36 -0800
From: Eric Dierker <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: [ga] .ORG NC Task Force (Final Draft (v 5.4)): Comments?

Excuse my possibly faulty quick reading.

I do not see a "divestiture clause"

Can Verisgn do what they did with Afilias and just own most
of a company they form in order to control dotORG?

should not there be a clause that says;

And verisign is prohibited within the next ten years from owning any
interest in any company that owns any portion of the dotORG
registry.

Thanks for all your hard work.  You have been a great rep on this TF.

Sincerely,
Eric

Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Some people on this list have already commented on the pre-final
> draft. Here is the final one. The changes between the two are
> described by Milton Mueller as follows:
>
> "Probably the only one of significance is that
> the words "controlled by noncommercial registrants" in 1a
> has been replaced by "noncommercial in orientation and
> the initial board of which includes substantial representation
> of noncommercial .org registrants."
>
> Also section 4 now makes it clear that the registry operator
> need not be a separate organization from the management
> organization, a minor point requested by the registrars."
>
> Additional comments (or new ones), please as soon as possible. The NC
> will discuss (and approve, we hope) this report in a few days.
>
> --
> [email-masked]
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:30:57 -0500
> From: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [nc-org] Final Draft (v 5.4)
>
> NAMES COUNCIL .ORG DIVESTITURE TASK FORCE
> v 5.4 (January 10, 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
> practices will be necessary but this must not result 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 either
> directly participate in 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.
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
> Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 21:35:45 +0100 (CET)
From: Marc Schneiders <[email-masked]>
Subject: [ga] Corrected version: .ORG NC Task Force (Final Draft (v 5.4)): Comments?

Some problems with the text I sent earlier. See below, please.

M

- ---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 15:21:29 -0500
From: Milton Mueller <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
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.

- --
This message was passed to you via the [email-masked] list.
Send mail to [email-masked] to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

------------------------------

End of GA-DIGEST V1 #976
************************