The original RFC's definition of .org for uses that "don't
fit in anywhere else" would seem to suggest that what belongs under .org should not
be anything that clearly belongs under .com (business operated for profit), .net
(network services, although it seems to be an extension of .com now), .edu (eduational)
or the country domains. So ruling out commercial enterprises would make the most
sense - not restricting it to government-chartered not-for-profits.
If an individual's
business should be .com the same as a corporation's, why should an individual's non-profit
activities not be an .org the same as a corporation's? This establishes a special
requirement - a bar to jump over - to do things for no profit that does not exist
when individuals (or partnerships) do things for profit. Are we trying to discourage
individual good works in the name
of further corporatizing society?
For
example, I provide free hosting and webmastering for jazzhouse.org, the Jazz Journalists
Associations' site. I just like
promoting this end of our culture. But guess
what, the Association isn't formally incorporated. So I have to tell them "You have
to
pony up the legal expenses for formal incorporation or they're going to take
away your well-established domain"?
|