[ncdnhc-discuss] .org issue

[James Love]

----- Original Message -----
From: <KathrynKL at aol.com>
> 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.

    Since I have never said that and do not believe this.  I would have to
say that you got this wrong.  Where does this "large and established" stuff
come from?  I have purchased .org domains for groups with no bylaws, no
corporate charter, and unfortunately, no money, such as public-domain.org,
and even use them for individuals who create protest or social comment
sites.  ICANNWatch is a non-commercial organization, and I doubt it has
wasted much time on legal things.  "those who can meet the difficult
not-for-profit threshold?"   I don't understand what is difficult about
being a non profit or non-commerical organization, or why an individual
using something for non-commerical use could not be distinquished from using
it for commerical use.   Being exempt from taxes is difficult.  But simply
being not for profit or non-commerical is not difficult.  I don't care which
term is used, I do think one can distinquish between commerical and
non-commerical (profit or not for profit).   Most people think of .org as
the not for profit name space, and .com as the for profit name space.  I
have never suggested any legal tests or difficult requirements, and you
should not say that I have if I have not.  It is confusing to claim I am
asking for something that I have not asked for.  We have plenty of confusion
already, plus I resent you putting words in my mouth, and getting it wrong.

Also, I have not suggested in the comment about the UDRP that the NCC
restrict who can buy or use a .org domain.   The issue of restricted vrs
unrestricted is a separate issue, and I was not raising it here.  If you
want a separate debate about the open or closed issue, we can do that.  I
have opinions and ideas that we could discuss.  However, that was not my
purpose in raising the UDRP/trademark issue, which can be addressed
regardless of whether the domain is open or closed.  I have simply suggested
that ICANN expand the rights of non-commercial organizations (including
those not formally organized non-commerical groups), to use names that are
claimed by trademarks by businesses.    This would expand the rights of
non-commerical domain holders, even fine too for individuals using .org for
non-commerical purposes.  If the ACM or others are opposed to this expansion
of the rights of non-commerical domain name holders, then fine.  We don't
agree.

> 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.

      Well, as proud as you are about the UDRP, we find it less that 100
percent perfect.   But more generally, I don't see that a modification of
the standared UDRP is a sin against humanity.  Certainly some of the TLD
applicants would like to modify the UDRP.  The unions definately did not
want to use the standard UDRP.   I know .coop did not want to.  The ICANN
staff rams the UDRP down everyone's throat as if it is the only way on earth
to think of these things.   It isn't.  Typically these groups want to expand
the rights of their own members to use strings.  Why wouldn't the unions
want to be able to use mciworldcom.union, and why wouldn't they want a UDRP
that *clearly* protected their right to do so?   I don't believe all the
ccTLDs have bought into the standard UDRP.

> 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.

   Are you representing the interests of non-commercial domain holders on
this issue, or making a more general point about how the UDRP is a one size
fits all policy that everyone should adopt?  If you are representing the
interests of non-commercial domain holders,  I ask how my proposal (an
expansion of the rights to use strings that are trademarked by businesses)
hurts non-commercial domain holders, and I ask if it helps non-commercial
domain holders.   You are the trademark lawyer.  Perhaps you can explain how
non-commercial domain holders would be worst off with a modified UDRP that
expanded their rights to use strings in .org that are used also by
businesses elsewhere (for example in  .com).

  Jamie