Re: [ga-org] First Ten Policy Questions
On 2001-06-10 22:24:18 +0200, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
>(throwing a curve ball into the discussion: would it be
>interesting to discuss a scheme whereby the fees for .com would be
>higher than for NSI, but where documented not-for-profit
>organizations got a very low fee? carrot rather than
>stick....?...probably unreasonable because just glancing at the
>documentation of non-profit status would cost far more than
>registering the domain....)
How about putting the carrot and the stick into the dispute
resolution policy, and into the fees?
First of all, we probably all agree that .org isn't the most popular
TLD for the typical "dotCOM" - in fact, it seems that .org as, so
far, mostly been attracting individuals and "organizations" of all
kinds. That is, even without being chartered, .org is kind of a
de facto non-profit TLD.
Now, instead of introducing a difficult, complex and expensive
policy to define who may qualify for .org and who may not do so, I'd
suggest to think about a dispute resolution policy which makes it
unfavorable for for-profit organizations. Instead of checking a
policy for every registrant, just checkt it in the case of dispute.
Such a policy could, perhaps, be developed along these very, very
- Businesses may only use the dispute resolution policy in order to
get the domain of other businesses removed (!) in case of bad
- Not-for-profits (or individuals) may use the dispute resolution
policy to get any domain in case of bad faith. One may think
about making it easier to get a businesse's domain name than
another not-for-profit's or an individual's.
Rationale in terms of examples: This should mean that the McDonalds'
clan's domain could continue to be mcdonalds.org, and that the
hamburger chain couldn't do anything about it according to the
policy. It should also mean that Westdeutscher Rundfunk (warning:
this is a public broadcasting institution, so it doesn't qualify
precisely as a business - work for lawyers, I'd suppose) can't go
for wdr.org when that's an individual's domain composed of his
It should also mean that Greenpeace can easily get greepeace.org
when it's squatted upon by Esso.
What do you think?
Thomas Roessler http://log.does-not-exist.org/
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-org" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html