RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Marilyn,
may I recall you that the target of the .org as described in the Plan B
and associated document is to be allocated to non profits, i.e.
organization with no real money.

We will have http://ibm.com for $ 9 per year
and http://mother-theresa.org for $ 509 per year

if we consider that the nearest and cheapest solution at hand to control
if the resgistrant is not a cybersquater  is the $500 UDRP.

Great!
Jefsey


On 02:18 24/03/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>-- 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.
>--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. :-)
>--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?
>
>-----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@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