21 ms·

The UNHCR or another huge entity will not give a shit. They have a legal department which can end Ethos Capital if they like. However, the reading club with 20

by oaiey 7y ago

The UNHCR or another huge entity will not give a shit. They have a legal department which can end Ethos Capital if they like. However, the reading club with 20 members and yearly income of 300€ cannot afford a 100€ .org. .org and the PIR had a dedicated purpose.

dr_dshiv 7y ago
But why not just get a .club extension? Shouldn't .orgs be reserved for big orgs?
- JohnFen 7y ago
  > Shouldn't .orgs be reserved for big orgs? Why should it be? The size of the orgs has never been a criteria in the past, and the majority of nonprofits using a .org domain are small.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    What if there was a grandfather clause for existing orgs, so there is no funny business on pressuring people to change their domain. But I also feel like it would make sense to have a domain extension that meant something. Right now it seems like it does, but it doesn't.
- jasonvorhe 7y ago
  They aren't and they never were. On which basis would you restrict registrations from country x, where founding some organization is free or even comes with tax benefits while you'd allow registrations from countries requires some kind of operating income? It doesn't make any sense.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    I don't understand. Can you clarify what you mean by "registrations from countries requires some kind of operating income"?
- sgc 7y ago
  Why should it? .Org is about an ethos of philanthropy, which a club just doesn't have.
  - frenchyatwork 7y ago
    A club is certainly more pro-humanity than some of the existing misathropic stuff there like internet.org. Philanthropy doesn't have to be about giving money.
  - EvanAnderson 7y ago
    Per RFC920[1], which defined the initial TLDs, the ORG domain was for "Organizations". It doesn't say anything about "ethos", not-for-profit status, etc. It's for "organizations". I'd love to see a citation re: this "not-for-profit" designation being codified somewhere by IANA. It's not supported by RFC 920. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920
    - zorpner 7y ago
      I think it's an implicit read, that is, given that anyone commercial should be using .com, anyone using .org should be non-commercial (and likewise non-educational, non-governmental, non-military). That being said, it's not like .org has, in practice, ever been exclusively for non-commercial entities or non-profits.
    - sgc 7y ago
      I'd also love to see something indicating it is for big organizations only, which is patently false. Obviously it is irrelevant why it has that ethos as long as it in fact exists (if you want to pretend the general public doesn't see .org as generally indicating a service to humanity rather than a commercial venture, we can just agree to disagree). Also, in the doc you link it is clearly, evidently, for non-commercial organizations since .com comes first and covers all commercial entities, and.org is for all other entities. It is part of the Public Interest Registry. The point is there is a legitimate reason to want to use it, even if you are small - and no good reason to force small NGOs to abandon it other than to increase profit extraction from non-commercial organizations.
- philsnow 7y ago
  no, .org is reserved for organizations that aren't dedicated to making money. size isn't relevant. let me turn the question around: why should Ethos get .org? make them drum up support for some new TLD. This is purely, purely a cash grab, allowed by regulatory capture, and it should be stopped.
  - dr_dshiv 7y ago
    What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Well, let's say that a mission driven for profit corporation could ensure that .org owners aren't for-profit -- and do a better job than the current committee. Should they be allowed a .org? In my world, I'd say no, since I'd prefer that .orgs are actually restricted to non corporates.
    - philsnow 7y ago
      > What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Fair point. The "restriction" was really a recommendation (from RFC 920 in 1985, in a more polite time on the nascent "internet"). > [...] Should they be allowed a .org? Who cares? The cat is out of the bag. As of today there are 1514 TLDs [0]. .mil and .gov should still have some requirements, but .org, .net, .com (and almost all the other TLDs) are all effectively the same thing. [0] http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/ http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/
      - EvanAnderson 7y ago
        What "recommendation" are you referring to from RFC 920? All I see is: ORG = Organization, any other domains meeting the second level requirements. I see nothing about not-for-profit or money mentioned at all in RFC 920. There are occurrences of the word "commercial", but they're all in reference to the COM domain. The ORG domain is only referred-to as being for "Organizations".
  - C1sc0cat 7y ago
    No its not its anything else, this was one of the problems in the process before this one.
type0 7y ago
> However, the reading club with 20 members and yearly income of 300€ cannot afford a 100€ .org. Correct, I already seen that happen where smaller club shut down their web page because a hosting provider was unreliable. Since the lack of funds and expertise to move their WP site they now use facebook instead.

by oaiey 7y ago

dr_dshiv 7y ago

But why not just get a .club extension? Shouldn't .orgs be reserved for big orgs?

JohnFen 7y ago
> Shouldn't .orgs be reserved for big orgs? Why should it be? The size of the orgs has never been a criteria in the past, and the majority of nonprofits using a .org domain are small.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  What if there was a grandfather clause for existing orgs, so there is no funny business on pressuring people to change their domain. But I also feel like it would make sense to have a domain extension that meant something. Right now it seems like it does, but it doesn't.
jasonvorhe 7y ago
They aren't and they never were. On which basis would you restrict registrations from country x, where founding some organization is free or even comes with tax benefits while you'd allow registrations from countries requires some kind of operating income? It doesn't make any sense.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  I don't understand. Can you clarify what you mean by "registrations from countries requires some kind of operating income"?
sgc 7y ago
Why should it? .Org is about an ethos of philanthropy, which a club just doesn't have.
- frenchyatwork 7y ago
  A club is certainly more pro-humanity than some of the existing misathropic stuff there like internet.org. Philanthropy doesn't have to be about giving money.
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  Per RFC920[1], which defined the initial TLDs, the ORG domain was for "Organizations". It doesn't say anything about "ethos", not-for-profit status, etc. It's for "organizations". I'd love to see a citation re: this "not-for-profit" designation being codified somewhere by IANA. It's not supported by RFC 920. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920
  - zorpner 7y ago
    I think it's an implicit read, that is, given that anyone commercial should be using .com, anyone using .org should be non-commercial (and likewise non-educational, non-governmental, non-military). That being said, it's not like .org has, in practice, ever been exclusively for non-commercial entities or non-profits.
  - sgc 7y ago
    I'd also love to see something indicating it is for big organizations only, which is patently false. Obviously it is irrelevant why it has that ethos as long as it in fact exists (if you want to pretend the general public doesn't see .org as generally indicating a service to humanity rather than a commercial venture, we can just agree to disagree). Also, in the doc you link it is clearly, evidently, for non-commercial organizations since .com comes first and covers all commercial entities, and.org is for all other entities. It is part of the Public Interest Registry. The point is there is a legitimate reason to want to use it, even if you are small - and no good reason to force small NGOs to abandon it other than to increase profit extraction from non-commercial organizations.
philsnow 7y ago
no, .org is reserved for organizations that aren't dedicated to making money. size isn't relevant. let me turn the question around: why should Ethos get .org? make them drum up support for some new TLD. This is purely, purely a cash grab, allowed by regulatory capture, and it should be stopped.
- dr_dshiv 7y ago
  What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Well, let's say that a mission driven for profit corporation could ensure that .org owners aren't for-profit -- and do a better job than the current committee. Should they be allowed a .org? In my world, I'd say no, since I'd prefer that .orgs are actually restricted to non corporates.
  - philsnow 7y ago
    > What does "reserved" mean? Anyone can buy a .org. There isn't any actual restriction. Fair point. The "restriction" was really a recommendation (from RFC 920 in 1985, in a more polite time on the nascent "internet"). > [...] Should they be allowed a .org? Who cares? The cat is out of the bag. As of today there are 1514 TLDs [0]. .mil and .gov should still have some requirements, but .org, .net, .com (and almost all the other TLDs) are all effectively the same thing. [0] http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/ http://stats.research.icann.org/dns/tld_report/
    - EvanAnderson 7y ago
      What "recommendation" are you referring to from RFC 920? All I see is: ORG = Organization, any other domains meeting the second level requirements. I see nothing about not-for-profit or money mentioned at all in RFC 920. There are occurrences of the word "commercial", but they're all in reference to the COM domain. The ORG domain is only referred-to as being for "Organizations".
- C1sc0cat 7y ago
  No its not its anything else, this was one of the problems in the process before this one.

type0 7y ago

> However, the reading club with 20 members and yearly income of 300€ cannot afford a 100€ .org. Correct, I already seen that happen where smaller club shut down their web page because a hosting provider was unreliable. Since the lack of funds and expertise to move their WP site they now use facebook instead.