[ga-org] Outline of proposed consensus points
On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 14:19:57 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
BOUNCE firstname.lastname@example.org: Non-member submission from
["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]
"Use it or lose it" is an appropriate policy in the toll-free number
context, because there is a severe shortage of numbers
and the capacity of the numbering plan is quite limited.
There is no need for it anywhere in DNS, which has, for all
practical purposes, almost limitless numbers of unique strings.
>>> email@example.com 06/25/01 01:54PM >>>
It has often been said that your constituency is by far the most the most
productive. You are exemplifying that claim, and I applaud your
Your approach to even handedness and positive means for changing dotORGs use
is to be commended.
I would ask that you consider adding a "use it or lose it" policy. The U.S.
governments long standing policy with toll-free numbers is very
helpful in coming to an understanding regarding hoarding and warehousing.
Milton Mueller wrote:
> Apparently, you misread the proposal. If you read it correctly you would
> understand that there is no proposal for restricting future
> registrations. Indeed, that is one of the primary reasons why
> NCDNHC takes an interest in this issue. We feel that such
> restrictions would harm non-commercial speech.
> NCDNHC made a very strong statement against evictions and in
> favor of retaining open registrations. Read the full statement.
> What part about the following don't you understand?
> "the new registry/partnership must be committed to permitting current .ORG
registrants to stay if they choose, and to keeping registrations
> open on a first-come, first served basis."
> "The new entity should be selected, in large part, on
> its commitment to keeping .ORG open to individuals and
> organizations on a first come, first-served basis.
> Registrants should not be required to prove anything
> about their organizational or legal status to register
> names under the .ORG top-level domain. All existing
> legal registrants under .ORG should be allowed to
> maintain their registrations indefinitely, if they so
> wish, subject to the existing UDRP. However, the
> marketing plan for the ORG TLD should be adjusted to
> maintain ORG's unique identity."
> When we talk about changing the marketing we mean exactly
> that: we will focus on promoting ORG to noncommercial
> registrants. We will crease encouraging businesses to register there,
> and we will not encourage trademark owners
> to register duplicate and pre-emptive names in ORG and NET
> the way NSI did. That's all.
> Also, let's get the facts right. My information is that there are 2
> change registrants in ORG, not 6 million. Where did you get the 6
> million number?
> >>> "William X. Walsh" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 06/24/01 11:54PM >>>
> >> 4. We favor maintaining the noncommercial identity of
> >> ORG by revising its marketing and promotion strategies
> >> to target noncommercial users, and to discourage
> >> duplicate, pre-emptive registrations by businesses.
> There is no non-commercial identity. For YEARS this domain has had an
> unrestricted charter. Any "non-commercial identity" was a falacious
> assumption. With over 6,000,000 registered names under an open
> unrestricted policy, it is not appropriate to consider changing the
> Sure they are. As are commercial organizations engaged in commercial
> activities. There are, and should be, no restrictions at all.
> But you see fit to harm over 6,000,000 registrants whose existing
> investments in .org domain names that were registered under an open
> and unrestricted charter by restricting future use by future
> registrants, thus harming the nature of their investments by the
> public assumption that their use is a non-approved use now, even if
> they are exempt the public impression alone would be harmful to them.
> Best regards,
> William X Walsh <email@example.com>
> Userfriendly.com Domains
> The most advanced domain lookup tool on the net
> DNS Services from $1.65/mo
> This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
> Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-org" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html