Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 04:03:09PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Hello Kent,
> 
> Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 11:40:46 AM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 09:36:02AM -0600, Bruce James wrote:
> >> ICANNs attempt to change the status of dot org runs "against" the current
> >> dot
> >> org definition by the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
> 
> > No.  Sorry, it does not.  The only real change attempted by ICANN is to
> > remove .org from NSI, and start a non profit registry to run .org.
> > Those proposed changes have nothing to do with the charter of .org, and 
> > have no effect on who may register, or who has registered in the past.
> 
> Yes, it does, Kent.

Sorry, you are confused.  There are general, non-binding statements
about possible futures for .org; they are not binding on anyone.  There
are no binding contractual terms that say anything at all about the
policy that might be adopted in .org.  In general, the charter of a TLD
is independent of the entity who runs it.  For example, Nominet is a
non-profit; it runs .uk; .uk most definitely allows for-profit entities
to register. 

The charter of .org (whatever it might be or whether there even is one)
is independent of the entity (whatever it might be) that runs the TLD.  
The only thing mentioned in the contract is that there is a presumption 
that a non-profit entity would run .org.  There is no statement 
whatsoever about the policies that might or might not be adopted for 
.org.

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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