What to do with the money? (RE: [ncdnhc-discuss] Resolution on ORG Divestiture)

[Marc Schneiders]

On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, at 13:42 [=GMT+0100], Chris Bailey wrote:

> At 12:01 17/10/2001 +0900, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >Anyone who thinks of ORG as a gigantic pot of money
> >that can be used to solve the world's problems needs
> >to think twice.

Hear (bis).

> >Here is a simple scenario to think about:
> >
> >There will be an application period for taking over
> >ORG.
> >
> >Applicant A promises to operate ORG
> >efficiently, use surpluses to improve service and
> >reduce prices.
> 
> Where would the unique ORG non-commercial character be in that? I thought, 
> since it was agreed not to make ORG restricted that its character would be 
> achieved through marketing a specifically non-commercial image. It is 
> difficult to see how just promising good service and price reductions does 
> that.

This could be lower prices for certain countries, say? I see a huge
difference between subsidizing *registrations* for 'poor' people and
subsidizing 'strange' things, like travel for officials, computers,
cable, or sushi, which everyone also should have. The one is related
to what ORG is doing, and controlable, the other open to a lot of
fuss, abuse, etc.

> Also "service" can mean different things to different people. To give an 
> example, just this week, I have been involved with a case where a major 
> international women's organisation has had its domain name handed over to a 
> porn site, because they were late in paying their renewal fee. You should 
> hear what they have to say about the "service" of the Registrar, though the 
> porn site probably thinks they are doing a great job. Commercially they 
> probably are.

Sorry, even a very customer friendly registry (like new ORG, please
God) will cancel your domain if you do not pay after a couple of
reminders (over 30 or 40 days), and not noticing it isn't working
after that (no email, complaints about your site being down...) for 40
days (additionally). Whoever gets it then is not the registry's fault,
really. And it does not matter whether the losing party is women,
blacks, nazis or me.

[...]

> Surely giving ORG such a unique non-commercial identity is the whole point 
> of it being given over by Verisign. What's the point otherwise?

The point was -we all know that- that VeriSign gave up ORG so that it
could keep COM both as registry and registrar. The non-profit
character of new ORG was part of that deal. It is uncertain (in
theory) whether ICANN or VeriSign insited on the non-profit. In any
case new ORG, given the limitations imposed by real life, could be a
real good thing for non-profits (including individuals, families,
unofficial groups etc) if it worked good (as it is now) and is
affordable.

Again, there is no reason why the new ORG registry could not charge
different fees for different parts of the world. For example.

[...]
> Why shouldn't the 
> non-commercial sector be entitled to channel the profits from the 
> relatively small space it has been given into non-commercial Internet 
> interests and issues?

As long as it is transparent, please. Not a big fund from which to
grab money for all sorts of things.

-- 
Marc at Schneiders.ORG