You do have some good points. But you've missed a few others. Particularly
the .ORG problem. Which, to be honest, is the only one I really care about.
there is a good anti- ICANN/VeriSign sentiment in many people in these groups.
ICANN's behavior over the years has been considerably less than respectible.
And anything they do to strenghten their own position is guaranteed to generate outrage.
They fought the idea of new TLDs for years and when they finally do give in, they
go out of their way to chose some very questionable ones while ignoring others that
were at least as good.
And yes, it's also true there has been quite a few posts
in here that have been, well, extremely emotional with little substance. They
tend to get ignored.
You are slightly off base about the .ORG problem, though.
Short of reforming ICANN completely, that's the only current aspect that I'm concerned
It's true that is not an explicit part of the ICANN/VeriSign agreement
itself. It's part of what they've said they are going to do _after_ they get
control of .ORG from VeriSign. ICANN is unhappy that VeriSign allowed anybody
to register a .org.
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
That is partially untrue. It is true
that nobody has gotten an official word from ICANN on this, but that's because they
wont respond to anybody. They are refusing to talk. They are refusing
to confirm, deny, or even clarify. Frankly, considering the outrage in this
group, you'd think they'd be eger to clarify a misunderstanding.
The only response
they (or anybody on the board) has been willing to do is the response from Mike Roberts
that I've mentioned several times. That was posted in response to people's
initial concern about the .ORG status. However, unfortunately, he went out
of his way to NOT comment on what people were actually saying. He did use the
term "non-commercial", but he refused to go any further.
He refused to tell people
they were mistaken. He *KNEW* the concerns because he had read those messages.
He knew what people were worried about. He knew that people were concerned
about losing their private .ORG and open source, etc. etc. But instead of adding
just one sentence and telling them they were wrong and that it would apply soley
to commercial use of .ORG, he said there would be a transition period.
attempt at calming people was to say there would be a transition period. He
didn't say individuals concerns were wrong. He didn't say the policy change
was directed soley at commercial use of the .ORG domain. (And as has been posted
before, the 'specs' for .ORG TLD does not say you can't have a business operating
under .ORG. I don't think you should, but contrary to what ICANN is now implying,
it doesn't say that. It says its for things that don't really fit into the
other categories. That's pretty open.)
Elsewhere, in other reports, they
mentioned that .ORG owners would be allowed one renewal period, as a way to give
people time to adjust. Again, they didn't say this was limited solely at companies
doing business with .org.
In an article on ZDNet
ICANN indicated that it wants "org" Web addresses reserved
only for nonprofit organizations "after some appropriate transition period," a restriction
that hasn't been enforced in recent years. Details haven't been worked out, though
one ICANN official suggested that current "org" Web sites may be allowed to continue
regardless of their affiliation with nonprofits.
Notice the key phrase
"nonprofit organizations"? This is in contrast to Mike's use of "non-commercial".
Again, please note the "nonprofit ORGANIZATIONS"... That excludes individuals.
statement says that one person says that current .ORG might be grandfathered in.
Mike said differently in his post, saying there would be an approriate transition
(I've seen other reports, but I can't find them right off hand. I
didn't bookmark all of this stuff.)
So, to disagree with you, yes there is indeed
sufficient *officially* reported information for individual .ORG owners to be very
There isn't anything official from ICANN but that's because they wont
say anything of any sort to us.
If ICANN wants to come in here and officially
clarify their intentions with .ORG, then they are free to do so. In fact, it
would be very very welcome. But they refuse to do so.
We are NOT hearing
anything from them. And that is what's causing so much anger in this forum.
they do that, all we can do is to take ICANN's stated .ORG intentions (after they
get control of it from VeriSign via the current proposed agreement), and the one
post by Mike Roberts.
And based on those, and what has and has not been said, yes
individual .ORG domains are at risk.
If you can get an official response from
ICANN, you'd make a lot of people in here very happy.