So, what is the problem with an agreement that benefits
both Verisign and ICANN? Do ICANN and Verisign have to be dissolved before
everyone will be satisfied? I think not.
I'm not as
concerned about 'fair' as I am concerned about 'will my domain name function or not'.
If it is 'fair' to give the .com, .net and .org TLD's - all at once -
to operators other than NSI in 2003, and since a transfer of this magnetude has never
been attempted before, will it also be 'fair' when my websites no longer work
or (God forbid) the entire A-Root quits working for weeks at a time?
I'm getting quite tired of reading replies and posts that seem to only deal
with 'ICANN is unfair' and 'NSI is the devil'. Gimme a break folks.
I'm not saying that people dont have darn good reasons for acting this
way, but this is a discussion about whether the proposed revision to the Verisign/ICANN
deal is a decent idea, not whether or not you think Verisign has a birthmark in the
shape of three sixes, or ICANN should be dissolved or not.
I am also tired of people saying that this issue is also regarding a proposal to
change .org domain names to a 'non-profit only' status. This has never been
authenticated by anyone and, in fact, the only information in regards to any proposed
changes in the .org system is that only 'non-COMMERCIAL' sites can be listed on a
If this is the case, so be it. I have no sympathy
for anyone who bought a .org to put a commercial site on. Yes, I do think that
NSI may have been misleading in promoting the org domain sales to commercial entities
by saying 'protect your internet identity'. However, there are two sides to
that coin as well.
NSI DID promote the sales of .org to commercial
entities. There is no denying this.
However, they promoted
these sales to owners of .com domain names. Basically, they were saying 'buy
the .org that matches your .com or someone might put a site up on the .org version
of your .com name and reap the benefits of your established .com name popularity'.
They did not say 'buy a .org and put a commercial website on it'.
They did not say 'buy a .org that does not match your .com domain name and put a
commercial website on it'.
When I first heard the 'news' about
all this I was just as concerned/furious as almost everyone else in this forum.
But I did the research required and have had my opinion swayed extrememly toward
the Verisign/ICANN side of the argument.
If all I did was
read the posts in here, I would probably still be as angry as most people in here
seem to be.
Do a little research, think about the concequences
(in both directions) and you may just find that this whole thing isnt some kind of
'conspiracy' (for those who watch too much TV).
If , after
doing the research , you still have the same concerns and arguments, do us all a
favor and tell us what you found during your research that makes you think this is
still a 'bad deal for all concerned'.
Just coming in here
and saying 'NSI is bad' and 'NO MORE NSI' and 'ICANN must be dissolved' isn't enough
for those of us who have done our own research. In fact, it demonstrates an
inability to look at all the facts in the situation - and the inability to understand
documentation that has been made publically available.
Verisign/NSI has faults
YES ICANN isn't exactly following
all the rules the way most of
us would have
expected them to
YES Everyone is entitled to their opinions
NO Opinions that are not backed up by facts dont really hold
much merit in any situation
NO Not everyone is still complaining about this latest proposal
you go through all the forums on the ICANN site you'll notice the same people posting
the same thing under every forum topic.
If you 'filter out' all of the anti-ICANN
and anti-NSI fanatics - who can easily be demonstrated to have their own personal
agenda to promote - and just look at the posts by those who have done the research
into the actual topics, and you'll find that the balance of 'for' and 'against' are
much closer than you would think.
In some cases, the posts that are backed up
by facts and actual documentation that are 'for' something ICANN wants to do outweigh
those that show facts 'against' it.
Sure, toss in all these people who post everywhere
they can because they feel they were wronged by NSI or ICANN (and I'm not saying
they weren't) that they must 'contribute' to EVERY SINGLE FORUM on this site, and
you'll have more 'against' than 'for' posts.
In one sentence a person will
say 'I want ICANN to stay out of my online affairs and not pay attention to what
I'm doing'. In another sentence, that same person will say 'I dont think it
is fair that ICANN didnt warn me about putting a commercial site on a .org'.
when has ICANN been the 'internet police'? Are they supposed to continually
research every single registered .org to be sure that there is not a commercial site
on it? Is NSI supposed to do that?
If they did do that, there would be
public outcry from the 'its not fair' group, trying to put a stop to it. Since
they didnt do that there is a public outcry from the 'its not fair' group that it
You either want ICANN 'in' your face or 'out of'
your face. If you want them 'out of' your face then it is YOUR responsibility
to make sure that you are not breaking any rules (like putting commercial sites on
a .org domain).
As anywhere else, ignorance of the law is no excuse for
breaking it. If you have a commercial site on a .org, I have no sympathy.
In fact, if ICANN were to suddenly decide that commercial sites WERE allowed on .org
domain names, I would be hard pressed to not file a suit myself.
were many very good, and potentially profitable .org domains available years ago
that I did NOT register because I understood the rules of 'no commercial sites'.
I did not get to reap the benefits of those names because I followed the rules.
If ICANN decides that those who 'broke the non-commercial rules' of the .org names
can get away with it because of the 'fairness' to the .org site owner, I will be
voicing my opinions as to how much 'fairness' is being shown to those of us who followed
the rules and have lost potential revenues because of it.