Why does ICANN like to avoid American localities for their cloak and dagger meetings,
and WHY are they avoiding the free press so much? Because they have an agenda
they want to keep hidden from the general public. What is that agenda? Only God and
the Devil knows...
Here I will beat a dead horse some more:
A good example
is the ICANN proposal of changing the format of .org to
strictly "Non-Profit"
organizations and .net exclusively to internet webhosts and networks. My intention
is to give several reasons why this proposal is unrealistic, show how this proposal
does more harm than good, and demonstrate how widespread the opposition to this proposal
is.
1. How can a singular definition of "Non-Profit" be applied to .org websites?
The formal definition of "Non Profit" is too narrow to justify the huge disruption
this will cause with .org owners and webmasters.
2. How will ICANN police the web
content to insure it is indeed non profit? If there is no
way to enforce a law,
then it is not logical to initiate it. It seems like ICANN is getting
carried
away with its "authority". We do not live under a communist government, which
can
suppress free speech laws to fit its own "agendas".
3. After years of common law
acceptance as a general use domain, what right does
ICANN have to disrupt the
hundreds of thousands of .org and .net owners and initiate
these new formats when
it was negligent in regulating the registrar companies who sold
the domain names
without this "Non-Profit" condition? Once the domain name was sold,
the circumstances
surrounding that sale did not specify that the corporation be a Non
profit. Of
course, the registrars should be included in the long list below because they
definitely
lose money by this proposal (less sales and renewals of .org and .net domain
names).
4. Will the current .org and .net owners be compensated, or will the US government
and
ICANN sieze these names from the owners? The ends do not justify the means,
because so
many people will be negatively affected for the benefit of, well, nobody.
This seems like
unreasonable and unlawful search and seizure to me. Not to mention
violation of free
speech laws and communist style government regulated censorship.
I and many others feel
a deep seeded anger and resentment at ICANN for even considering
these proposals.
5. Website content cannot be controlled by any government body,
because of free speech
rights. It is eventually up to the webmaster what content
is published onto a website. A
domian name extension will not change this fact.
For example, What will stop a
webmaster from publlishing content other than "Non
Profit" content? If ICANN does not
plan to police the web to insure web content
is in compliance with its proposals, then
ICANN should not consider changing the
formats for .net and .org.
Listed below is an extensive list of companies, organizations,
and websites that have
voiced their opposition to ANY change in the current web
format for .org and .net. If you
would like to add your name or company to this
list, please visit handsoffmy.org and join
us.
If this message gets deleted,
we know who deleted it and why, because I will be leaving it
up.
In conclusion,
these "Non Profit" and Networks only (.net) proposals will do nothing but
harm
to webmasters, web hosts, registars, and domain name investors, and will benefit
nobody.
Supporters