Re: [ga] .ORG Names

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2001 at 04:11:26PM -0500, Kendall Dawson wrote:
> At 11:05 AM 3/15/2001 -0800, you wrote:
> >They are not considering such a change.
> >
> >Yes, the proposal contains some language that can be misinterpreted that 
> >way, but no one is going to get their .org name taken away because they 
> >are not a non-profit.
> >
> >d/
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to back this statement up?

See Louis Touton's letter to the Names Council, 
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00899.html:

    The only substantive "policy" issue (of the type to be referred to
    a Supporting Organization under the bylaws) that appears to be
    raised by the proposed revisions is the future restrictions (if any)
    on .org, but if the VeriSign proposal is accepted that will in fact
    be the subject of ICANN process, including the DNSO, over the next
    year, and it does not require any action at this time. 


Louis' preceeding letter,
http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/council/Arc04/msg00894.html, explains 
very succinctly why the agreements themselves do not involve 
substantive policy changes:

    There are a variety of changes between the existing registry
    agreement and the three proposed ones, but they either (a) are not
    matters of policy (trimming back the .net extension from November
    2007 to January 2006 is an example of this); (b) involve the
    continuation of present policy (allowing the continued common
    ownership, with strict operational separation, is an example of
    this); or (c) simply bring VeriSign into line with the policies that
    were developed as a result of the new TLD program, which was
    initially considered in the DNSO (the conformance of the proposed
    .net and .org agreements to the new TLD template is an example of
    this). 

The sound and fury over the possibility of changes to the .org charter
comes from the ICANN staff's announcement at
http://www.icann.org/melbourne/proposed-verisign-agreements-topic.htm,
where the future of .org is described as finding an appropriate
sponsoring agency to turn it over to.  However, 1) this description is
preceeded by the very important caveat "through some procedure yet to be
determined"; and 2) this description is a high level summary in document
that is basically a call for discussion.  I'm quite sure that the staff
wishes in hindsight that they hadn't been so creative there (personally
I believe that the document was prepared in a tremendous last-minute
rush), but the fact is that the legal documents themselves contain
absolutely no presumption about how .org should be managed. 

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