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

["JandL" <jandl@jandl.com>]

Kent:

IMO, the real point is that making any change to .org after it has 
evolved to its present status is unfair at the very least.  To even 
consider the possible disenfranchisement of any .org holder, 
whether non-commercial or not is wrong, wrong, wrong.  Unless the 
language is crystal clear, no change should be made at all.

When you consider that not one of the new TLDs can replace .org 
as it now exists in scope, there is really no alternative for those 
who don't fit neatly into non-profit/non-commercial categories.  
.info? .name?  Nope.

Guess we can start marketing some of the really neat inclusive 
name space TLDs, huh?  How about .ETC? <vbg>

Leah



> 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
> 


--
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