<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] Contract Verisign / ICANN and statuschange of dot org from unrestricted to restricted
On Tue, Mar 27, 2001 at 05:18:33PM -0800, William X. Walsh wrote:
> 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.
Nope. That is not what it says. What it says is:
Most non-commercial organizations have preferred to register in .org
(or a ccTLD) rather than .com or .net, and there are many
non-commercial organizations that view .org as their home. In these
circumstances, it seems appropriate for the registry operator of
this TLD to be an organization that is likely to be sensitive to the
needs of non-commercial organizations.
That language and the surrounding language is very clear, but I will
paraphrase and expand it for you:
RFC 1591 put commercial entities in .com, so, according to 1591
entities that went into other TLDs, including .org, would be
non-commercial. While NSI stopped enforcing restrictions, in FACT,
most non-commercial organizations do register by preference in .org,
and in FACT, by far the bulk of registrants in .org are indeed
non-commercial. A non-commercial entity would be sensitive to this
EXISTING SITUATION, whereas a for-profit registry would be more
likely to trample over this CURRENTLY EXISTING SITUATION, and try to
aggressively exploit .org for profit. This would trample over the
expectations, and the rights, of THE LARGE MAJORITY OF CURRENT
REGISTRANTS.
The cold fact is that the bulk of registrants in .org are in fact,
surprise, surprise, non-commercial organizations, and THEY HAVE RIGHTS,
TOO.
> The implication is there, this is all a part of the deal, Kent, even
> if its not on paper.
Spare me your conspiracy theories.
> You know it, and everyone here knows it.
On the contrary, YOU don't know it, and NOBODY knows it. You are simply
spinning a web of conspiracy, and waving your hands. Your "arguments"
are statements about "implications", and things that "everybody here
knows", and other veiled nonsense. You have no argument.
--
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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|