Re: [nc-org] Re: First draft of an ORG policy - please comment

[Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>]

> 
> So -- the heart of the matter?
> 
> Do we wish to clarify and reintroduce the intent of RFC920, this
> time with new-ORG explicitly and exclusively for noncommercial
> organizations, rather than as a default trap for them?
> 
> or
> 
> Do we wish to establish new-ORG as a domain without registration
> restrictions but differing from other similarly unrestricted domains
> in regard to its organizational basis?
> 
> Before contributing my own responses to these questions, I'd like to
> be sure that other TF members also feel this to be high on the list
> of key issues. If so, proponents for both approaches have already
> revealed themselves to be among our number.
> 
> /Cary
> 

TF Fellows,

Let me first put an URL to the rfc920 (anno domini 1984):
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc0920.txt
It reads as souvenirs from a childhood, which after long years
looks like an old good time with no problems.

With the exception of MIL (I do not know much about it), noone
of initial .EDU, .GOV and .ORG remains as it was expected since
a long time.
Human nature plus ambiguity of language. You have some Canadian
organizations under .GOV, you have "training sections" of some
commercial companies under .EDU (I abstain from nominating
a French one I happen to know about) or private schools from outside
USA (still French exemples - all French public schools are recorded
under .fr, but at one time it was snob enough to try to get also
an .edu name, and few private did it).

Anyway, we definitely need an .ORG, with that meaning, it acts
like the fourth, neutral, outside dimension. We have icann.ORG, 
dnso.ORG, our European ccTLD organisation centr.ORG, my worldwide 
ccTLD organization wwtld.ORG, it is endless.

I understand the purpose of this TF is, among others, to devise
how to preserve this neutral TLD.

Elisabeth