[ncdnhc-discuss] .org issue

[KathrynKL at aol.com]

Jamie Love wrote: << 
 I ask that the following issue be addressed in the .org designation.  I
 would like to see some understanding that ICANN considers .org to normally
 be for use by not for profit entities, rather than for businesses, and that
 this should be taken into account in UDRP decisions.
....  I would like to make sure that this
understanding is recognized by the UDRP.   >>

Jamie:
I have to disagree completely with you on this one.  I do not think that 
ICANN should be doing what you propose; and the UDRP is not intended for 
review of content.  Why should ICANN protect non-profit organizations over 
all other types of noncommercial communication in .ORG?  Here are some of my 
key concerns with your proposal:  

- non-profit is largely a US and perhaps European legal, and tax, construct.  
even in the US, non-profit is so time-consuming, expensive and difficult that 
even organizations which are not commercial do not do it until they are more 
mature or large enough to support an accountant (Domain Name Rights 
Organization, which I co-founded, as an example).  why do we have to push 
organizations/individuals/families to fall into this classification? 

- non-profit is only one small class of organizations.  Organizations, 
overall, include professional, personal, athletic, student, political, 
community and a million other types of organizations.  What they generally 
share in common is that their goal is not money-making, but some sort of 
activity or communication among its members or participants.  All of these 
groups currently operate in .ORG.  Why in the world would we want to create a 
preference for non-profit organizations above other types, forms and 
constructs of organizations?

- non-profit does not mean non-commercial.  many trade associations are 
non-profit (most with membership lists that are completely corporate).  I 
thought the focus of .ORG -- as embraced by the NCC and by the Names Council 
Task Force report -- was (and should be) its noncommercial orientation.  I 
have been looking at .ORG carefully in the last few weeks.   Within it I see 
extremely valuable noncommercial communication that is personal, individual, 
family, group, etc.  

    +   I see websites devoted to political information and discussion (such 
as          information about a country's difficult election posted by people 
outside the         country for people inside the country to read where there 
may not be a free       press).  I see websites and domain names used for 
social communication            (including discussions of parenting, 
gardening and cooking).  Why in the             world should this 
communication have to be endorsed by a "nonprofit               organization" 
for it registered or protected  in .ORG -- now and in the future?  


Your proposal to expand UDRP from trademark to content control sends a chill 
up my spine.  There must be other ways to protect what you want -- and BTW, 
you have a common law trademark under US law in both CPT and Consumer Project 
on Technology.

regards, kathy