Re: [nc-org] Restrictions on ORG accomplishes what?
>>> Cary Karp <firstname.lastname@example.org> 08/16/01 03:49PM >>>
>Not that I'm proposing restrictions, but I would have thought that
>there would be greater value in a .org that had some community
>parameters that distinguished it from .com.
The short answer is that if there really is such a greater value,
an ORG registry controlled by a broad-based nonprofit will
happily market the domain in such a way as to capture that value.
But there is no need to actively restrict registrations.
Example: I run a hamburger joint with a decor and menu oriented
toward children. My target market is the 5-10 year old crowd.
If an 80-year old couple shows up there to eat, do i turn them
away? Why should I?
Within ORG the distinction already exists, as a natural function of
consumer choice in the marketplace. There are 28 million COM registrations, and only 2.7 million ORGs. Clearly, there are different
populations inhabiting the two domains. We in NCDNHC have proposed
to market ORG as a distinct identity, and believe that that is the only
As an amusing point of reference, check out www.att.org.
>Not that it matters,
>but I doubt that the prospective registrants would be particularly
>interested in the registry of the one being operated on a
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.
As you may know, I personally agree with this, but my
constituency, and the business constituency, do not agree.
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.