[icann-eu] FYI Politech on .org

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

http://www.politechbot.com/p-01788.html

(Alexander: You could add a link to that page to your icannchannel
news item.)

********

From: "Andrew McLaughlin" <mclaughlin@pobox.com>
To: <declan@well.com>
Subject: RE: Why are ICANN-crats talking about evicting .org owners?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:16:33 -0500

Declan:

We don't have any intention of kicking out existing domain name
holders. The idea is to turn over management of .org to some
appopriate organization/association/entity/whatever, which would
then make decisions about .org registration policy.

I'm always amazed by the amount of misreporting & hyperventilation
about domain name stuff -- this one's no exception.

--Andrew


-------------------------------------------------------------------
andrew mclaughlin        |       chief policy officer & cfo
internet corporation for assigned names and numbers
<ajm@icann.org>         |        <http://www.icann.org>

-------------------------------------------------------------------

********

To: declan@well.com
From: "Joe Sims" <jsims@JonesDay.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Why are ICANN-crats talking about evicting .org
owners?
Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 13:14:41 -0500

Declan, since I negotiated the proposed agreements on behalf of
ICANN, I thought I should point out that this particular issue is a
red herring generated by bad news reporting.  The proposed
agreements make it clear that what will happen to .org after
VeriSign gives it up, and what (if anything) will happen to existing
registrations, will be the subject of the normal consensus
development process over the next year or so.  To repeat: contrary
to some news stories (and an early, incorrect SlashDot posting),
there have not been (and could not be) any decisions made on either
of these issues, since those decisions are obviously policy issues
that must be resolved by community consensus.  Obviously, even if
future registrations in .org were limited to non-commercial
organizations (which clearly was the original intent), existing
registrations could easily be grandfathered if that was thought to
be the fair and equitable thing to do, as many people argue.  The
point is that this should and will be debated to a community
consensus, which is the way the process should work, so no one is in
jeopardy now.

Joe Sims
Jones Day Reavis & Pogue
51 Louisiana Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20001
Direct Phone:  1.202.879.3863
Direct Fax:  1.202.626.1747
Mobile Phone:  1.703.629.3963

***********

Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2001 14:20:35 -0500
From: vint cerf <vcerf@mci.net>
Subject: Re: FC: Why are ICANN-crats talking about evicting .org
owners?

The proposal is just a proposal - and the question of the presence
of non-not-for-profits in the .org registry is still quite open.
ICANN has no desire to create hardship where there isn't any. It
seems unlikely that existing registrants would be "evicted" without
a good deal of discussion and planning and for the sake of
simplicity and fairness, it would seem more reasonable to limit
FUTURE registrations - the messy part is the possibility of some
kind of gold rush to register before such registrations (ie of
for-profit organizations) would no longer be accepted.

vint cerf

***********

Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2001 10:47:41 -0800
From: Brian Thomas <cinnamon@pft.com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
Subject: Re: FC: Why are ICANN-crats talking about evicting .org
owners?

Thought you'd like a comment on this.

I want hostmaster@netcom.com from 1992-1993, and as such handled
registration of all domain names for Netcom's customers. At that
time it was generally understood that .net was for ISP's, .com was
for companies, .org was for non-profit organizations, and .edu was
for universities. At no time, however, did the Internic actually
enforce any of these besides .edu; they started a policy (That I
don't know if they continue today) that .edu was only allowed for
'4-year, accredited universities'. As responsible netizens we
usually tried to explain the individual TLD's purposes, but this
wasn't a hard and fast rule, and it was more our company policy than
anything the Internic enforced.

Amusingly enough, I believe I was also one of the first to deal with
a would-be domain broker. A customer tried to register some 75
domains with us over the course of a week, and I remember quite a
few discussions with management over whether we would allow this. He
was threatening to sue if we didn't give him all the ones he wanted;
eventually we allowed him something like 20 that had to do with his
company's stated purpose. (Which I'm sure had little to do with how
he actually intended to profit from the names.)

Anyway, thought I'd share.

Brian


-- 
Thomas Roessler			    <roessler@does-not-exist.org>