Although the analagy may
seem a little on the ridiculus side, would you permit a government, or government
sanctioned organization to decide that you could no longer be named "Jim" unless
you had red hair? Or, not "Gregory" unless you passed the bar exam?
stop laughing at my rediculous analogy, try to think of a reason why restricting
.org names to non-profit organizations is justified, and the above isn't.
to agree, I like the idea and motivation behind a non-profit only TLD, but I dislike
I think organizations should have the right to choose their
name as they please. If we're going to let .tv or .to pass into the hands of organizations
that are not located in, or have nothing to do with those countries, why should we
enforce a restriction on .org?
Even if we like the idea of an enforced .org, it
is of course, completely unfair to revoke currently granted domains on this basis.
I imagine that won't ever happen. But changing the precident is just as bad. What
use is it to enforce .org for the future, if there are .org domains held now that
will continue to exist that do not meet the enforcement criteria? How does that help
the public in any way?
Non-profit organizations can protect their names through
traditional means of trademark. Looser, non-legal organizations cannot. Why does
there need to be enforcement when other means, such as trademarks protect the interests
of individual not-for-profits.
1.) The ability to determine one's own name, or
of an ogranization to determine it's own name, are cleary a fundamental right. Compramising
this may not lead to the end of humanity, but I do believe it to be a very wrong
path to go down.
2.) Restricting .org does not seem to be in the public's best
interest, or particularly desired.
3.) It is totally unreasonable to revoke .org
domains granted when things were unenforced. With these domains continueing to exist,
how is the public's collective interest served by enforcing the rule for the future.
.org will not assuradly = a not-for-profit any more than it does today. Unless you
revoke the current .orgs, which is by all views, completely unreasonable, enforcing
.org for the future doesn't do anything meaningful.
4.) Because individual .org's
are legal entities, they can protect their interests with trademark. Perhaps a legal
precident does need to be set that when trademarked company foo owns foo.com as well
as foo.org, and the not-for-profit foo has a similar (or the same) trademark, that
the .org should rightly be granted to the not-for-profit, and the .com rightly be
granted to the commercial entity. The previously stated intention of .org sets up
justification for this interpretation, and the statement of that intent *should*
continue for this and similar reasons. However, it shouldn't be enforced.
I think it's clear ICANN exists in a way that it's motiveations push it directly
away from the world's public interest, which it is supposed to represent, I'll hold
off ranting on that. I personally don't see any way ICANN can be 'fixed' or replaced
at this point.