<html>
At 07:36 PM 1/4/2002 -0500, KathrynKL@aol.com wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2><<Please
note that the problem with "sponsored, unrestricted" was raised
in this forum long ago, and was ignored.>><br><br>
I see that we have returned -- in a personal and heated
manner</font></blockquote><br>
Kathryn, it is difficult to imagine what it is in my text you found
either personal or heated. Feel free to provide some linguistic
analysis to the text you quoted. Feel free, also, to demonstrate
from the constituency mailing list archive that the problem was not
ignored. That is, that it received anything more than minor and
quick dismissal. I would be delighted to find that my memory and my
own email records are wrong, and that a careful, serious consideration of
the issue did take place.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2> --
to the question of whether .ORG should be a restricted or unrestricted
gTLD. We have definitely focused on this issue, with discussion and
debate. It was hardly ignored. <br><br>
Among the things we discussed (fall), was: The .ORG space is not
homogeneous, and it is not solely used by organizations. .ORG has
become the default space for noncommercial speech in the gTLDs.
.COM and .NET are commercial. That means that everyone else seeks
the refuge of .ORG. This includes organizations, political
statements, educational groups, educational statements, and websites of
individuals and families. It has become a wonderful thing!<br>
But our .ORG users are difficult to classify, and their speech and
communication sometimes blurs lines because commercial groups can have
noncommercial messages. .ORG is a gem on the Net -- for
individuals, organizations, alliances, shared personal, political and
religious beliefs, unincorporated organizations, and ideas.
We discussed the deep concern that .ORG, as a sponsored gTLD, excludes
some noncommercial communication and leaves it no place else to go.
</font></blockquote><br>
Kathryn, such sentiments all all quite lovely. However it is not at
all clear how any of this relates to the specific points of concern
raised about the draft that was presented. Please
clarify.<br><br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>d/<br>
<x-sigsep><p></x-sigsep>
----------<br>
Dave Crocker
<<a href="mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com" eudora="autourl">mailto:dcrocker@brandenburg.com</a>><br>
Brandenburg InternetWorking
<<a href="http://www.brandenburg.com/" eudora="autourl">http://www.brandenburg.com</a>><br>
tel +1.408.246.8253; fax +1.408.273.6464<br>
</font></html>