ACCURACY AND ACCOUNTABILITY (SECOND DRAFT)
This policy has been reviewed and updated. View the archived policy.
WHAT DOES THIS POLICY DO?
This Policy explains how accuracy and accountability will be maintained within Dot Eco names and their eco-profiles. It includes proposals for annual audits, a whistle-blower facility, an assurance committee, penalties, appeals and the need for contact information on eco-profiles.
Download the Complete Draft Dot Eco Profiles Policy (PDF)
BACKGROUND
Without accuracy and accountability, Dot Eco names and eco-profiles may lose meaning and value. This Policy is critical because it will ensure that the entire Dot Eco system is accurate, accountable and therefore trustworthy.
We propose using multiple tools to achieve a trustworthy Dot Eco system including:
- An annual random audit of eco-profiles and Dot Eco domains.
- A whistle-blower facility that allows anyone to flag problems with the system.
- An independent assurance committee that will oversee the above and take action using penalties and takedown procedures where violations are found.
- An appeal mechanism whereby Dot Eco owners can disagree with and appeal committee decisions.
THE BIG QUESTIONS
- Will a random audit and whistle-blower facility be enough to monitor Dot Eco names and profiles, or do we need to do more?
- An additional tool we have considered is creating ‘crowd-sourced’ mechanisms. This could mean allowing people to comment on or rate eco-profiles, perhaps at the option of the owner. Could that be a good idea?
- How can we best handle spam or malicious complaints?
The entire policy is open for feedback and debate. We have included the above questions as thought starters. You can respond below.
Your responses will be aggregated by the Meridian Institute and reported to the Dot Eco Stakeholder Council for consideration before being reviewed by Big Room and integrated into a third draft policy.
Comments
BACKGROUND
I think as a precursor to the points above for Background, it is also useful to education and communicate regarding just who or what is eligable for a .eco domain. It's easy for .edu, you have to be a RTO. But what are the guideliens for .eco? This could be a process that applications go through to educate them in the merit of their application.
THE BIG QUESTIONS
Think the crowd sourcing / rating model is a good one and makes sense.
As for malicious complaints, I would refer back to my earlier comment about having clear guidelines for who can or cannot register a .eco domain name. Any complaints would have to identify specific areas or reasons why the party lodging the complaint believes their is a valid claim against a .eco name and profile. Perhaps compaints which make it through this first step could go to a wiki editors type model whereby the complaint is assessed and if deemed to be valid, passed onto whoever makes the final decision around what action needs to be taken.