This policy has been reviewed and updated. View the current policy.

CURRENT STATUS: CLOSED FOR REVIEW

Discussed at Vancouver Pilot Consultation (May 20, 2009) and Sydney Regional Consultation (June 25, 2009). Posted to Round 1 30-day Online Consultation (August 10th, 2009).

DESCRIPTION

This policy describes who or what can register a Dot Eco name, the types of information they will have the opportunity to provide to populate their eco profiles, and stipulates how profile fields can be added and removed over time.

1. REGISTRANT TYPES

Because different types of registrants will have widely varying eco profiles (for example, large international companies compared with individuals), the information requested will vary with the type of registrant.

The registrant will select a category from the following list:

• Individual/Personal
• Company
• Non-Profit/Non-Governmental Organization/Co-op
• Government Body
• Products, Services or Initiatives

Questions for Discussion

1. Are there other types of registrants that do not fit these categories?
2. Are these categories broad enough, or too broad
3. How should the categories of registrants be designated? The current proposal is grouped by the type of entity registering and/or using the website. Another option is to group them by the intended use of the website (for example, an informational campaign, a product or service); a third could be a combination of the two.

2. REQUIRED AND VOLUNTARY INFORMATION

Registrants will have the opportunity to provide information to populate their eco profiles. Information requested may be required or voluntary.

Questions for Discussion

1. Should there be any required fields?
2. If there are required information requests, should they be consistent for all registrant types?

3. ECO-PROFILE FIELDS

All eco profiles will be made publicly accessible in the Dot Eco System.

Eco profile fields must meet the following criteria:

• Be commonly used and understood;
• Be based on pre-existing disclosure requirements, regulations and standards where available;
• Help users to assess, contextualise and compare information; such as standard industry classifications and organisation size;
• Where possible, be linked to data that can be automatically collected through an application programming interface (API) or other protocol (e.g., XBRL - eXtensible Business Reporting Language);
• At least one field should be an open question allowing the applicant to reply in their own words why they are part of the Dot Eco System;
• Registrants will be given the option to verify their eco profile via an accredited 3rd party assurer;
• Fields should allow for a globally diverse group of applicants and users;
• Registrants can disclose information in different languages;
• Disclosure fields and their descriptions will remain in English. Other languages may be included over time at the discretion of Big Room Inc., as advised by the Dot Eco Stakeholder Council; and
• Existing fields should be able to be updated or changed in the future and new fields may be added periodically (see 4 below).

Questions for Discussion

1. What existing standards, codes and protocols should be recognized and linked to by the Dot Eco System?
2. How can we ensure comparability and integration of registrant disclosures? (e.g., The Global Industry Classification Standard (MSCI GICS), Universal Product Codes (UPC))
3. Should multiple languages be displayed in the Dot Eco System? How will this affect comparability and quality assurance?

4. ADDING AND REMOVING ECO PROFILE FIELDS

Changes in science, standards, technologies, reporting, regulations, and community expectations will provide new opportunities to renew and expand registrants' eco profiles. Therefore, it is important that the Dot Eco System be constructed in such a way that it can evolve, while also maintaining stability and coherence.

Eco profile fields in the Dot Eco System can be added and/or changed over time. Any decisions to add or change to the Dot Eco disclosure fields will be made by an independent multi-stakeholder Disclosure Committee who will review and propose changes to the Dot Eco disclosure fields on an annual basis.

Adding or changing to Dot Eco disclosure fields will be reviewed and considered by the Big Room Board. The decision-making process will be open and accountable to the Dot Eco community.

• The Disclosure Committee will be made-up of a diverse groups of stakeholders drawn from the Dot Eco Community. Selection will seek to balance global regions, expertise, and types of entities (non-government organisation, company, government, individuals);
• The Disclosure Committee's by-laws, meeting minutes and decisions will be publicly available;
• The Disclosure Committee's meetings and discussions will be moderated by an independent third party professional facilitation organization;

Questions for Discussion

1. Is the selection criteria for the Disclosure Committee appropriate? Are there any criteria missing?
2. What stakeholder groups need to be represented on the Disclosure Committee?
3. What is the best way to select members for this committee (e.g., by popular nomination, identification through a selection committee)?
4. What is the best time-frame to review disclosure rules?
5. Should the Disclosure Committee be also able to consider ad-hoc requests to change disclosure fields outside of the scheduled review process?

5. REGISTRANT UPDATING OF ECO PROFILES

Registrants in the Dot Eco System may wish to update the information provided in their eco profile because of new information or changing circumstances.

• Registrants may update their eco profiles at any time, at least annually at renewal.
• An archive of previous eco profile information will be publicly available and linked to the registrants current eco profile.

Questions for Discussion

1. Should registrants be required to update their eco profiles more frequently than annually?
2. Should public comments and crowd sourced opinions be part of a registrants' eco profile?