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

[Thomas Roessler]

http://www.icann.org/tlds/org/applications/isoc/section5.html#c25A1

  1. ORGWatch

  This service, available at a nominal fee, will allow monitoring of 
  a .ORG domain name, or a keyword and its domains associated with 
  the keywords. Any changes to the domain name data for the linked 
  domains will result in a notification being generated.

The keyword part of that sounds like what you really want when  
you're interested in suing or UDRPing everyone who registeres  
<yourdomain>sucks.org as quick as possible.

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




On 2002-08-21 09:14:18 -0400, Harold J. Feld wrote:
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:14:18 -0400
>From: "Harold J. Feld" <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
>To: Thomas Roessler <roessler at does-not-exist.org>
>Cc: Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>, discuss at icann-ncc.org,
>	lynn at icann.org
>Subject: Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] [long] The NCDNHC's .org report is numerically inconsistent.
>X-No-Spam: whitelist
>
>ORGWatch looked like their version of WLS.  While some intellectual 
>property types might want it, it seems a fairly generic service.
>
>Harold
>
>Thomas Roessler wrote:
>
>>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.
>