ORG fees (RE: [ga] New FAQs Posted)

[Marc Schneiders <marc@venster.nl>]

On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 16:34 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> I don't have any way of knowing what the fees might be.

No, of course not, but what you wrote earlier about past experience
(see below) suggests they must be higher. An interesting fact, I
think, as it will also regard those who already have ORG names, even
if they may keep them... So the proposed new policy, which is part of
the deal, is of consequence for those who now have an ORG name,
whatever the proposed grandfathering will amount to.

> I do believe though that it is very difficult to implement restrictions
> unless there is a way to automate the process.  But if the restrictions must
> be controlled manually, it won't scale.  

Automatic checking of requirements might be difficult to implement for
a TLD that is supposed to serve the whole world. Each country has its
own system of not-for-profits...

> If there is a small number of
> names, scaling is not an issue.  The more the number of names increases the
> more scaling becomes an issue.

Is there any reason to assume that only a small number of names will
be requested?

-- 
marc@schneiders.ORG
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -  
PROTEST AGAINST LOSING YOUR ORG NAME, OR PAYING HIGHER FEES:

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

> 
> Chuck
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: marc@venster.nl [mailto:marc@venster.nl]
> Sent: Friday, March 23, 2001 4:28 PM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: 'ga@dnso.org'
> Subject: Re: [ga] New FAQs Posted
> 
> 
> On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, at 15:40 [=GMT-0500], Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 
> > Considering that there has been a lot of concern expressed on this list
> > regarding the changes proposed for the .org registry, for those who are
> not
> > aware, ICANN posted six additional FAQs today, all regarding .org
> questions:
> > 
> > http://www.icann.org/melbourne/info-verisign-revisions.htm
> 
> [...]
> 
> > I would also like to respond to a statement in FAQ #11: "Until 1996,
> Network
> > Solutions enforced the restrictions on .org registrations, but due to
> NSI's
> > resource limitations active enforcement of the restrictions was suspended
> > early in that year. Since then, the restrictions have been enforced only
> > through self-selection."  I happened to be around when the change was made
> -
> > it was made at the recommendation of Jon Postel.  He specifically
> > recommended that we quit screening and allow users to self-select their
> TLD.
> > The problem with screening was that there was no meaningful and functional
> > way to determine who met the criteria (the same applied to .net) and what
> > was happening is that we were rewarding those willing to lie and
> penalizing
> > those who were honest.  To implement any sort of workable screening system
> > (if it is even possible on a global scale) at a minimum would have been
> very
> > expensive and would have slowed down service levels significantly.
> 
> Does this mean that you also think that a restricted ORG, as now
> suggested in the FAQ, would mean an increase in registration fees for
> ORG domains? And that it will not work anyway? 
> 
> -- 
> marc@pan.bijt.net
> 

--
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