Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    .org DotOrg PR push on Validation
    posted by Mueller on Sunday August 25 2002, @06:25PM

    The DotOrg Foundation has issued a press release saying it is "astounded" by the Noncommercial Constituency evaluation team's negative response to its proposal for optional "validation" of the organizations that register .org names. Marshall Strauss, president of the bidder for .org, writes that trust is a major problem in the solicitation of charitable donations, which may be correct. He also also asserts that DotOrg's optional and completely decentralized validation program would somehow change all that, which is a non sequitur, to put it mildly.

    The NCDNHC evaluation addressed this very issue rather cogently. Here is the relevant part of the report:

    "Two things are clear: 1) validation will be an added cost, for those who choose to do it, and 2) any validation and seal program requires achievement of a significant critical mass of buyers and widespread understanding among the user public before it can improve trust and therefore create an incentive among domain name registrants to pay the extra amount. If validation is used by only a small number of web sites - and/or if the sources and criteria for validation are so heterogeneous that the public does not understand them - the seal will be a meaningless detail and Internet users will not care whether a site is validated or not. If that happens, no one will pay extra for the service, and hence validation will do nothing to differentiate the domain.

    Currently, the trust we put in noncommercial organizations is not based on their domain name. It is based on public reputation and in some cases on a special legal status, such as 501-3(c) in the USA, or other forms of validation. There are numerous legal mechanisms and accreditation agencies to solve the problem of trust. It is not clear what is gained by coupling these functions to the operation of a domain name registry unless one is actually going to restrict entry into the domain on that basis, as is done with .edu, .museum, .coop or .mil.* Thus, if a validation service is viable as a purely commercial, voluntary proposition, DotOrg Foundation and associated registrars could do it without having any control over the .org registry."

    (emphasis in original)

    * (One point of consensus from the .org policy process was that if ICANN wants a fully "validated" domain for nonprofits, it should simply create a new TLD for that purpose. .Org is not suitable for that purpose because of its legacy of openness and its heterogeneity.)

      ICANNWatch Login  


    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

      Related Links  
  • press release
  • Noncommercial Constituency evaluation team's
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    DotOrg PR push on Validation | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 11 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Who speaks for .org registrants?
    by lextext on Monday August 26 2002, @05:30AM (#8709)
    User #6 Info | http://www.lextext.com
    Everyone's entitled to their opinion on what entity should succeed Verisign as the .org operator, but the sad thing about the current ICANN process is that the NCDNHC evaluation team's opinion on Criteria 4, 5, and 6 was deemed authoritative for purposes of the Staff recommendation.

    When a bidder correctly points out that the non-commercial evaluators missed the boat on what is really important to charitable institutions, we ought to listen to that. After all, the non-commercial evaluation team was hardly reflective of the community that will be served by the .org TLD. Here's a list of the evaluators and the primary e-mail address they use for participation in the NCDNHC:

    • Mr. Thierry Amoussougbo, Benin (amsiat@bow.intnet.bj)
    • Mr. Harold Feld, USA (hfeld@mediaaccess.org)
    • Mr. Eric Iriarte, Peru (faia@amauta.rcp.net.pe)
    • Mr. Milton Mueller, USA (Mueller@syr.edu)
    • Ms. Youn Jun Park, Republic of Korea (yjpark@myepark.com)
    • Mr. Ermanno Pietrosemli, Venezuela (ermanno@ula.ve)
    • Mr. Marc Schneider, Germany (marc@fuchsia.bijt.net)
    • Mr. Dany Vandromme, France (vandrome@renater.fr)
    That's right. Exactly one person views .org as his primary Internet identity. Given the very loose relationship between the evaluation team and the .org TLD, I'm not sure why this report should receive any more weight than one of the many public comments submitted to the ICANN forum.

    -- Bret (speaking in his personal capacity)

    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re: DotOrg PR push on Validation
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Monday August 26 2002, @02:30AM (#8707)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    That's certainly true, but I'm not really sure what your point is. How is the issue of whether an organization uses its .org domain for a Web site or for an IRC server affect whether or not it's desirable for them to get some sort of "validation" of their nonprofit status?

    The idea of TLDs indicating categories dates back to the start of the domain name system, when .com, .org, .edu, .mil, etc., were created. This predated the existence of the Web. Of course, the categories were intended to reflect the types of entities using the domain names rather than the types of use of them.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com