Return to Proposed Revisions to NSI Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: jwatkins
Date/Time: Thu, March 1, 2001 at 8:58 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows NT 5.0
Score: 5
Subject: Determining Name is a right, also restricting .org in current sitation has null effect


                                        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?

After you 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.

I have to agree, I like the idea and motivation behind a non-profit only TLD, but I dislike the implications.

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 as well as, 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.

Although 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.



Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy