dtobias writes "According to the DNSO Names Council -- Scribe's Notes, there are apparently no plans to impose any restrictions on past or future registrations in .org, as was widely reported and complained about earlier this year. While the idea of imposing such restrictions was floated briefly, the storm of protest about it, combined with the unlikelihood of successfully implementing such a plan, has resulted in the idea being abandoned."
The specific comments:
B. Future of .ORG ? Mueller
1. Representatives of GA plus all constituencies except ISPs.
2. .ORG to be sponsored (defining the community it seeks to serve, with focused marketing) but unrestricted. Efficient and reliable operation. Service to be available in all feasible timezones and languages.
3. No evictions to be made from .ORG because of this change. Had considered restrictions, but they're too hard and present few benefits.
4. Administration to be consistent with policies of ICANN process, including UDRP and Whois.
5. Want DNSO Task Force to help ICANN staff solicit and select bids for .ORG registry.
6. Report to be published by October, with decision in November.
7. Stubbs: Registration systems to remain the same? Still a thin registry?
* Mueller: Technical system hasn't been worked out yet.
8. Cochetti: Look forward to written report. And are these technical decisions or policy decisions?
* Mueller: Goal is to get .ORG to a new registry (other than Verisign). Policy questions are about restrictions and about sponsored/unsponsored status. Note that documents are posted on dnso.org web site.
So, apparently, .org domain holders have nothing to fear at the moment. There are apparently plans still moving forward to switch the registry operator of .org away from Verisign, and to start some sort of publicity campaign to encourage public understanding of the nature and intended purpose of that TLD and its wider use within the nonprofit community, but no mandatory restrictions on who can register in it.
Incidentally, I looked in the DNSO site and couldn't find any documents relating to .org. In general, I've found all the ICANN-related websites to be very poorly organized, with inadequate, incomplete, and inconsistent navigation, and content tending to be more devoted to bureaucratic minutia regarding committee structures than to substantive information on the issues they're involved in making policy over.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.