ORG (Was Re: [ga] Re: Board descisions)

[marc@venster.nl]

On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, at 15:46 [=GMT+0100], Thomas Roessler wrote:
> On 2001-03-14 15:09:30 +0100, Marc Schneiders wrote:

> Well, we all know that ICANN may have screwed up with the new TLDs.
> 
> However, there is one thing ICANN has not done so far, and that's to
> ruin an existing and well-established TLD.  (I'm leaving the
> alternativ dot-biz and other alt.root activities out of the picture
> for the moment, [...])

Just for this once, I will not bite :-)

> I believe that ruining or substantially changing a well-established
> TLD would be one of the few things ICANN could do in order to
> destroy even the strongest belief anyone may have in ICANN's
> commitment to guaranteeing the net's stability.  Such a decision
> would, basically, ruin the legitimacy of ICANN.

Yes, meaning that you think they will not do it?

> > There was an ICANN official quoted, saying that present
> > registrants in ORG could keep their names for another 'cycle',
> > IIRC. Unfortunately I have no source...
> 
> I'd really like to see that one.

So do I, but I saw it quoted in some message (email or webboard) and
kind find it back. I did, however, find interesting statements from
McLaughlin and Joe Sims and even Vint Cerf. You can read them here:

http://lists.netsol.com/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0103&L=domain-policy&D=1&T=0&O=D&F=&S=&P=11626

Basically they say nothing is decided yet. But there is this
consistent lack of clear assurances or promises that make me worried.

> > From whatever angle we look at it: changing the policy for ORG
> > does not benefit anyone, except perhaps Verisign, by making a
> > competiting TLD impotent.
> 
> Well, someone here (it may have been Kent Crispin, I'm not sure)
> made an interesting remark on the possibility of a differnet
> conflict resolution policy for a non-commercial dot-org.  

Yes, that would be interesting, but then I would want a *promise* and
one *before* the deal is swallowed. I do not believe those who now
suggest this as a possibility, will later on fight for it...

> However,
> the point made by some in the public comment forum - namely, that,
> in order to try new policies, new TLDs should be introduced - is
> still perfectly valid.

Exactly. So, away with any change in the ORG registration policies.

-- 
marc@schneiders.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
 http://www.ORG-domain-name-owners-lobby-against-ICANNs-sellout-to-VeriSign.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 



--
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