Re[2]: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted

["William X. Walsh" <william@userfriendly.com>]

Hello Kent,

Tuesday, March 27, 2001, 4:26:52 PM, Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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.

And in the SAME FAQ, Kent, that presumption is BASED on that a
non-profit would be a better job managing a domain restricted to
NON-PROFITS.

The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
if its not on paper.

You know it, and everyone here knows it.

If just once you would break ranks, you might have more credibility.

-- 
Best regards,
 William                            mailto:william@userfriendly.com


--
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