<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><FONT SIZE=2 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Jamie wrote:<BR>
<< Kathy, this is over the top. >><BR>
<BR>
Jamie, none of my comments are meant to be over the top. But I do call them as I see them. I have included your full email below that I was responding to. In it you set out a group of uses of .ORG domain names that you endorse, and a group that you do not endorse. You then say that you want to make sure that your understanding of .ORG "is recognized by the UDRP." I have to shudder at the implications of expanding the UDRP in this way.<BR>
<BR>
We have had this ongoing discussion for some time. As I understand it, you want to see .ORG for large and established organizations -- those who can meet the difficult not-for-profit threshold. I, many in the NCC, and the Names Council (via its unanimous Task Force Report) want to see .ORG for its existing base of noncommercial communication. This includes non-profit organizations, other forms of formal organizations, other forms of organizations without any formal infrastructure (say a softball group that meets every week), political discussion groups and information sites and social discussion and information sites (including parenting, gardening etc) whether run by organizations or not, family use, personal use, individual use. This is the current community that .ORG serves -- and it is a community of people, information, and communication that I value more than anything else on the Net. <BR>
<BR>
As you know, I was one of the final drafters of the UDRP. We limited it -- and purposely so. To me, you appear to be calling for an expansion of the UDRP to include reviews a) far beyond trademark law, and b) to welcome a inquiry into the content, use and nature of noncommercial speech -- a concept I find tremendously disturbing. <BR>
<BR>
I shudder at the implications I see, but I also welcome an explanation of why my analysis and concerns are not fair readings of your requests in .ORG.<BR>
<BR>
regards, kathy<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">I ask that the following issue be addressed in the .org designation. I<BR>
would like to see some understanding that ICANN considers .org to normally<BR>
be for use by not for profit entities, rather than for businesses, and that<BR>
this should be taken into account in UDRP decisions.<BR>
<BR>
I note for example that the domain I use for Consumer Project on Technology,<BR>
is CPTech.org. There are also:<BR>
<BR>
CPTech.Net - Cathodic Protection Technology, Pte Lid,<BR>
CPTech.Com - Corporate Technologies, Inc.<BR>
<BR>
I have not bothered to register a trademark in CPTech, althought in the US I<BR>
might be able to claim a common law trademark. But more generally, I<BR>
believe the fact that I registered in .org makes it clear that this is not<BR>
a corporate for profit domain. I would like to make sure that this<BR>
understanding is<BR>
recognized by the UDRP. Some people that had .net registrations had<BR>
problems when NetSol dropped the understanding that .net would be for<BR>
networks.<BR>
<BR>
Jamie</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>