Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?
Thursday, March 15, 2001, 11:12:15 PM, Dassa wrote:
|>> -----Original Message-----
|>> From: firstname.lastname@example.org [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of
|>> Jonathan Weinberg
|>> Sent: Friday, 16 March 2001 4:41 AM
|>> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
|>> Subject: Re: [ga] .org: non-profit successor for NSI mandatory?
|>> On the other hand, I think the recent furor over .org
|>> demonstrates that the Internet community would not be willing to see ICANN
|>> delegate significant policy authority over .org to any new body; rather, if
|>> restrictions are to be placed on registration on .org, they should be
|>> imposed by ICANN itself, in full public view and with the benefit of public
|>> comment. And it is not an easy thing (as the DNSO itself demonstrates) to
|>> simply create a new, well-functioning, representative organization whenever
|>> ICANN staff think it would be convenient to have one.
> I haven't seen any "furor" over who takes over the Registry on .org, that is an
> unknown at this stage. The only complaints I have seen revolve around the idea
> of those already holding registrations in .org may be asked to give up their
> domain names if their organisation doesn't fit into some yet to be defined
Most of the criticism I have seen goes further, to any change in the
policy for .org registrations, saying essentially that if they want a
restricted TLD, they should create a new one for it, regardless of any
possible exemptions for existing domain holders.
Where this would get really interesting, is that there are a number of
non-commercial third level domain registries running under .org second
level domains, and there are sites in that namespace that are
commercial in nature.
ICANN needs to not even open this can of worms.
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html