The suggestion of changing the status or rules for acceptable use of domains within
a TLD is sheer lunacy.Site owners need quality domain names, suited to their purposes.
We have paid $750 to acquire the rights to a .org domain and $6,000 to acquire the
rights to a .net domain. In the case of the .net, it is a generic single word related
to entertainment that is highly searched. It is not related to the intention detailed
in RFC1591. When .org and .net domains became openly available to registration, many
thousands of quality domains were registered, specifically because they were excellent
site names.
If RFC1591 were now to be implemented, is it really anticipated that
individual holders of domains of the quality of loan.org, business.org, hosting.org
and other commercial terms would see their current or future businesses damaged?
Would the owners of non network-provider services at domains like football.net, charity.net
and furniture.net stand back while their domains were transferred to artificially
titled ISPs?! What about "non-commercial" names like leukemia.com, environment.com
or lifeboats.com? Are their holders to be given some arbitrary period to attempt
to secure other domains that don't destroy their organisations?!
Are we prepared
to see whois responses like this?
"We are sorry: leukemia.com has been deactivated.
The following domains are available for registration: buyleukemia.org, ezleukemia.org,
quickleukemia.org"
We have invested considerable amounts in acquiring the domains
we need and will need; will we now be required to pay perhaps $60,000 to acquire
our .net in .com because we intend to develop a commercial site? If only! In fact
our entire business plan would die before it left the table because the corporation
that is using the .com is not prepared to part with it. Domains are *that* important.
ICANN would be opening itself up to legal action on an immense scale if the .org
proposal goes through.
Andrew Moulden
andrew@moulden.ORG