RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN

["Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>]

Okay, now I see the problem. I don't agree that non commercial have "no
money". They have funds, and many actually charge membership fees. I would
question that the Association for Computing Professionals, ISOC, or other
non profits have no money. How about the Red Crescent Society? How about the
United Way? How about the American Libraries Association. 

Let's keep going on this... How about Ralph Nader's organizations? Green
Peace?  

there are, however, and I agree, many small non profits who don't have
funding. I see none of them in the non-commercial constituency, no effort by
the present members to outreach to them (correct me, please with concrete
efforts and examples... I'd love to hear about how I am wrong about that).  

Or is it Markle and the other foundations you are worried about, Jefsey?

I think the foundations are making a positive contribution, but I'm not
worried about their funding base.

Are you? Should I be?

Marilyn
-----Original Message-----
From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2001 6:09 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [ga] ORG: some answers from ICANN


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@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