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

Username: woobie
Date/Time: Wed, March 21, 2001 at 8:44 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 98
Score: 5
Subject: My Opinion Changed, and more..


      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 .org

      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.

      YES 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

If 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'.

Since 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 wasn't done.
  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.
  There 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.


Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy