RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 20:18 [=GMT-0500], Cade,Marilyn S - LGA wrote:

> -- I think that we should be willing to work within the ICANN process/policy
> development process to undertake to develop the policy for .org. That sounds
> like  a  process where the non-commercial constituency would want to be
> heavily involved--as well as probably many from the non commercial side who
> aren't yet involved.

The NCDNHC has passed (or will pass) this:

"5. The possibility of restricting ORG to only non-profit registrants
is inconsistent with long-standing
policies and practices."

So they are *against* it. IS the DNSO only about helping ICANN to fill
in details where we disagree to the principals?

> --Of course, I do think that those already registered need to be
> grandfathered but I would expect them/us to participate in the policy
> development process. :-)

So, we cannot say "No"? Why not? What is wrong with finding it bad for
the internet to change the character of a TLD with millions of
registrations?

> --as for cost of domain names, and what that will turn out to be: Costs vary
> now, from ccTLD to ccTLD, and from registrar to registrar.  I think the
> existing contracts with the new incoming TLDs covers the pricing issue,
> doesn't it?

Is there a new contract for the proposed non-commercial ORG registry?

-- 
marc@schneiders.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
PLEASE, SUPPORT THE BOTTOM-UP "NO" TO BACKROOM DEALS...

 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 

> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc@venster.nl [mailto:marc@venster.nl]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 2:55 PM
> To: ga@dnso.org
> Subject: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN
> 
> 
> ICANN has added new answers to the FAQ about the Verisign agreement at
> 
> http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
> 
> These are about the policy for ORG... At last.
> 
> I note the following:
> 
> 1. There is no indication that the costs for an ORG domain will not go
> up. On the contrary. If the new ORG will enforce strict registration
> requirements, as is suggested, prices must go up or the new registry
> will go bankrupt. CHecking registrations takes time = costs money. 
> 2. There are no guarentees that we can keep our names.
> 3. The interpreation of the RFC that describes ORG policy has been
> refuted already by a number of people. ORG was for *all* entities that
> did not fit into NET or COM, nit just ORGanizations.
> 4. The real reason for a non-profit ORG registry is again kept from
> us: To make a competitor of Verisign's com impotent.
> 
> So, the protest needs more support. Numbers, 1domain1vote, bottom
> up. Let them hear your voice, if you own an ORG!
> 
> Please, send your ORGs
> to: no@ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
> 
> or: no@disgrace.org
> 
> The list of supporting ORG domains can be found at:
> 
> http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.O
> RG/
> 
> or again: http://disgrace.org/
> 
> -- 
> Marc Schneiders
> 
> 
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org 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 ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html