[ncdnhc-discuss] [long] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent.

[Thomas Roessler]

On 2002-08-20 17:46:41 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:

>ISOC was the only applicant to address the privacy issue with 
>ORGCloak service.  The description makes clear this was done to 
>safeguard noncommercial speakers.  

Ah, ok.  I have to admit that, when I saw that one, I thought much  
more about "personal" registrations than "non-commercial" ones...  I 
read through that part of the application fairly quickly, so I  
missed the rationale for this service. Thanks for the clarification.

>The caveat that it will consult with the IPC to implement the  
>service in a way that will still allow intellectual property  
>holders and law enforcement to have access to necessary  
>information to persue legitimate claims does not negate the  
>usefulness of the service. The ORGSURE certification service  
>would, on its own, constitute a "low" on the services, such as was 
>done with ORGFoundation.

>I see no services targeted to IP users.

I suppose that ORGwatch could be pretty appealing to them. 

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        <roessler at does-not-exist.org>