Hello up,
Thursday, March 01, 2001, 2:15:33 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2001, William X. Walsh wrote:
>> Hello bill,
>>
>> Thursday, March 01, 2001, 10:18:06 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > 2) ICANN wants to restrict .org to non-profits only "a restriction that
>> > hasn't been enforced in recent years" -- actually .org was for *all*
>> > organizations that were not either .commercial or .network infrastructure,
>> > for example we registered our family domain in .org my family is not
>> > commercial nor are we network infrastructure but were not non-profit
>> > either! If they enforce "non-profit" only, i.e. you need to have
>> > non-profit tax status, there goes our family domain.
>>
>> This portion needs to be stopped.
> Firstly, I seriously doubt they'd be able to do this with *existing*
> domain names, secondly, we still don't know exactly what they mean by
> "non-profit", just yet. Certainly not all countries have the same
> definition...in any case the RFC for .org never mentioned profit status,
> just that it was the appropriate TLD for something that didn't fit into
> .com or .net
> Personally, I thought they would have enforced the RFC's for .net first,
> since it actually spelled out what .net should and shouldn't be used for
> much more concisely than .org
Personally, I don't think it is appropriate to place any additional
restrictions on these TLDs at this stage. If they want restricted
TLDs, then those should be newly created gTLDs. Placing restrictions
on the existing gTLDs is entirely inappropriate and could be very
damaging, regardless of what this restrictions are.
--
Best regards,
William mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
