[ncdnhc-discuss] About Marketing Practices in .ORG [EXPIRED TRIAL LICENCE]

[Dr. Daniel Carras]

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 09:57:51PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> > This is the silliest argument I've seen
> > in this entire debate. ORG is unrestricted
> > now, and has been for all of the time Internet
> > has been open to the public. 99% of all ORG
> > registrants entered the domain without any
> > restriction. So ORG's "current character"
> > got that way in an unrestricted environment.
>
> The post divestment environment will be substantially different: the new
> registry operator for .org will be thrust into a fiercely competitive
> environment, whether it likes it or not.  Without some kind of
> sponsor/charter, there is nothing to keep .org from becoming a heavily
> marketed commercial TLD.

This is not true! It basically boils down to a simple definition of a .org, and that it is
an organization that is based on philosophy and not on profit! Any commerical company that
misleads the public into thinking that it is a .org when it is not, is guilty of fraud and
can be detail with in any legal system. So as long as the .org is properly marketed, so
that organization of philosophy are clearly associated with the TLD, there is no way that
it can, without violating criminal law (in which a compliant can be filed with local
authorities), that the .org TLD will become commerical.

> > It's the advocates of restriction that want
> > to change it.
>
> You seem ignorant of a critical bit of information: .org is about to
> undergo substantial change in management and environment.  It is highly
> unlikely that it will continue on the same path unless some effort is
> expended to keep it there.

An effort is being expanded, but will the high-minded council listen? As posted earlier,
the substantial changes in the .edu TLD violate the UN Charter and the basic philosophy of
the internet, which is to be open and free - without borders. Yet, changes in TLDs, that I
have seen so far, just regionalize control, giving governments more say on what
information is seen by the public, and the nike.com issue is a good example of governments
and large corporate organizations of using tactics of harassment. A more specific example
is my request for an .edu designation for my university. Inorder to get a review, I have
to wait for an unknown board to determine (in their own time) if an exception can be made.

"Dr. Carras,

I will pass your comments on to our policy board.

Sincerely,

Tammy Burkhart

-----Original Message-----
From: Dr. Daniel Carras [mailto:info at deltard.org]
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2001 3:47 PM
To: Tammy Burkhart
Subject: Re: NEW DOMAIN akadhmia.edu

Under network solution there was a means of disputing this. Is this true here as well? The

reason being, that limiting *.edu to "regionally-accredited, degree-granting institutions
of higher education that are accredited by one of the six U.S. regional accrediting
agencies" is far more restrictive than before (stated on the Network Solutions website)
and is a violation of the UN standard of academic freedom. My university, is not regional,
but international by the nature of the internet. As for the academics
standard, as stated, our school philosophy contradicts the accreditation standard, but
this
does not mean that we are not a good quality school. We're just new."

---
The question here, (for Vany and those who will vote and develop the "new" restricted .org
TLD) Would you support the vote if it arbitrarily restricted your groups and philsosophies
from registering?

--
Thank You
Dr. Daniel Carras
Delta R&D, Inc.
http://www.deltard.org
mailto:info at deltard.org
"Philosophy Incorporated: Our Product Is Thought"

--------------------------------------------------
Dr.Dan Iam with Green Eggs and Ham [Ref Dr. Seuss]