[ncdnhc-discuss] .org issue

[Dany Vandromme]

Hi Jamie, 
I completely agree with Kathryn, and I must also thank her for using
plain ascii rather than reduced html formatting.
Cheers
Dany



KathrynKL at aol.com wrote:
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dany VANDROMME                    |  Directeur du GIP RENATER

                Reseau National de Telecommunications
         pour la Technologie, l'Enseignement et la Recherche

                                  |  ENSAM
Tel   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 30     |  151 Boulevard de l'Hopital
Fax   :  +33 (0)1 53 94 20 31     |  75013 Paris
E-mail: Dany.Vandromme at renater.fr |  FRANCE
--------------------------------------------------------------------