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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

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@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