> 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
>
And ICANN has cared about what other countries think since when? Hang on, who
was it tried to screw CENTR to the wall recently, until CENTR threatened (ok,
hinted) that they might just take their roots elsewhere? Was it ICANN? (Or
was it just possibly the DoC?)
> 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
>
Ha! You seem to think this is about applying the rules correctly! It's not,
it's about Verisign giving way on something so they don't lose their
government sponsored _monopoly_. And it's .org because it's an easier target
and it doesn't generate as much dosh as the other two, period.
There's no morals or ethics involved here whatsoever. Remember who we're
talking about here - Verisign, NetSol, ICANN and the DoC. None of whom can
spell those words, never mind understand them.
adam
