[nc-org] Restrictions on ORG accomplishes what?

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

My constituency believes that nothing substantial is gained, and a 
lot of flexibility and freedom are lost, by attempting to come up with
arbitrary definitions of what constitutes an "organization" and
trying to restrict registrants to it.

Can someone who believes in such restrictions please explain
what they think it accomplishes? 

Certainly it will NOT alter the status or meaning of ORG in the
public mind. There are already hundreds of thousands of 
individuals and miscellaneous registrants in ORG. No one 
believes in kicking them out. So ORG's identity will remain
mixed regardless of what we do.

Certainly it will NOT reduce the number of UDRP disputes.
In fact, the B&C proposal would only increase the number of
disputes by creating an entirely new, and therefore not entirely
predictable, basis for challenging names. 

Certainly it WILL increase the cost of administering the
domain. 

The burden of proof rests with those proposing restrictions.
What problems have come from open resgistriation in ORG that
cannot be properly address via the UDRP?

--MM