Re: [nc-org] Restrictions on ORG accomplishes what?

[Cary Karp <ck@nrm.se>]

Quoting Milton:

> Not sure i understand what you mean by this, but I think you
> are saying that to a noncommercial registrant (e.g., my own
> research center, which holds an ORG) it doesn't matter a lot
> whether the registry is commercial or non-commercial.

Yes, that's what I mean and I don't see why it should matter to a
commercial registrant, either.

> The preponderance of opinion seems to be that only a non-profit
> entity can be trusted to administer ORG in a way that will not
> exploit short-term revenue opportunities that might risk making
> ORG a clone of COM. There is also a strong belief within NCDNHC
> that the non-commercial community will get more support from an
> ORG registry run by consortium of non-profits.

I can easily enough accept that a non-profit administrator would be
less likely to mine the thing for money and that this is a
worthwhile end in itself. (Although this does beg the question about
the definition of non-profit, given the global nature of the
community of candidate administrators.)  Is the idea to have a
non-profit group of registars, as well?  How can the monetary value
that people ultimately ascribe to domain names be set by central
mandate?

It is reasonable enough to want to prevent ORG from becoming a clone
of COM. (Despite the disproportionality of the registrant bases,
that's pretty much what the legacy situation is.)  What I am still
having trouble understanding is how this can be done without setting
a clear perimeter around new-ORG that distinguishes it from COM.

/Cary