[ncdnhc-discuss] .org issue

[KathrynKL at aol.com]

Jamie wrote:
<<   Kathy, this is over the top.  >>

Jamie, none of my comments are meant to be over the top.  But I do call them 
as I see them.  I have included your full email below that I was responding 
to.  In it you set out a group of uses of .ORG domain names that you endorse, 
and a group that you do not endorse.  You then say that you want to make sure 
that your understanding of .ORG "is recognized by the UDRP."  I have to 
shudder at the implications of expanding the UDRP in this way.

We have had this ongoing discussion for some time.  As I understand it, you 
want to see .ORG for large and established organizations -- those who can 
meet the difficult not-for-profit threshold.  I, many in the NCC, and the 
Names Council (via its unanimous Task Force Report) want to see .ORG for its 
existing base of noncommercial communication.  This includes non-profit 
organizations, other forms of formal organizations, other forms of 
organizations without any formal infrastructure (say a softball group that 
meets every week), political discussion groups and information sites and 
social discussion and information sites (including parenting, gardening etc) 
whether run by organizations or not, family use, personal use, individual 
use.  This is the current community that .ORG serves -- and it is a community 
of people, information, and communication that I value more than anything 
else on the Net. 

As you know, I was one of the final drafters of the UDRP.  We limited it -- 
and purposely so.   To me, you appear to be calling for an expansion of the 
UDRP to include reviews a) far beyond trademark law, and b) to welcome a 
inquiry into the content, use and nature of noncommercial speech -- a concept 
I find tremendously disturbing.  

I shudder at the implications I see, but I also welcome an explanation of why 
my analysis and concerns are not fair readings of your requests in .ORG.

regards, kathy

> 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 note for example that the domain I use for Consumer Project on 
> Technology,
> is CPTech.org.     There are also:
> 
> CPTech.Net  - Cathodic Protection Technology, Pte Lid,
> CPTech.Com  -  Corporate Technologies, Inc.
> 
> I have not bothered to register a trademark in CPTech, althought in the US 
> I
> might be able to claim a common law trademark.   But more generally, I
> believe the fact that I registered in .org makes it clear that this is not
> a corporate for profit domain.  I would like to make sure that this
> understanding is
> recognized by the UDRP.  Some people that had .net registrations had
> problems when NetSol dropped the understanding that .net would be for
> networks.
> 
> Jamie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncuc.org/pipermail/ncuc-discuss/attachments/20020319/53c54d44/attachment-0001.html>