> You are assuming that we have misinterpreted what ICANN
means
> when they use the phrase "non-profit organization." These are
> legal
papers and the law is VERY clear as to the definition
> of the word organization:
>
>
Quote:
>
> "a body (as a corporation or union) that has a membership
>
acting or united for a common purpose"
>
> Therefor, yes, ICANN is talking
about registered 501c
> status organizations.What legal papers are you referring
to? I haven't seen
any. The only thing we've seen is a *summary* of
the
proposed changes. The summary uses the phrase "non-profit
organizations",
but it doesn't refer to 501c -- and I've heard
(but can't verify) that the phrase
"non-profit organizations"
appears only in the summary, not in the actual proposal.
It's
quite possible that the phrase was being used informally to
refer to any
organizations other than profit-making businesses.
It's clear, if the summary is
at all accurate, that they're
considering some kind of restrictions on .org.
Chances are
the author of the summary had not read the relevant RFCs
that
define what .org was intended for. I see no evidence
whatsoever that they
were seriously considering restricting
.org to US-registered 501c organizations.
(Even if they
were considering it, after this feedback I predict they'll
say
that wasn't what they meant.)
It would be nice if someone on the ICANN board came
onto this
forum to clarify their position.
But, as I've said before, this isn't
the main point. The main
point is the rest of the proposal, which allows
Verisign/NetSol
to continue its monopoly and removes the requirement that
it
split its registry and registrar businesses.