4 ms·

From their commitments: > Differentiate the dot-org domain as representative of not-for-profit, public-benefit, and charitable purposes, distinct from the inte

From their commitments: > Differentiate the dot-org domain as representative of not-for-profit, public-benefit, and charitable purposes, distinct from the intended purposes of other domains. Does that mean we won't be able to register .org for personal website/blogs?

wmf 7y ago
.name was created (pretty late) for that purpose but it never really caught on.
- zadokshi 7y ago
  An email address like bill@gates.name is hardly attractive (I realise this is subjective, but if no one can imagine using the domain like this, then what’s the point of it.) And besides, there are certainly too many people with the same name for this to be practical.
toast0 7y ago
That seems at odds with their mission: > The Cooperative Corporation of dot-org Registrants, or CCOR, is the cooperative organization that seeks to embody and collectively represent the community of dot-org domain name registrants, who will be its members. As a .org registrant that doesn't fit into their enumerated purposes, I don't see how they can claim to represent me. It would also seem at odds with a further commitment: > Ensure that the dot-org domain is not used as a point of control or censorship over the speech or conduct of its registrants or their constituencies. In that it seems to promote the idea that some speech or conduct (such as running a commercial business) should not take place on a .org domain, because of some distinct purpose of the domain.
- bwoodcock 7y ago
  Well, first of all, you’ve got the same one vote as all other registrants, so you’re neither more nor less represented than any other .ORG registrant. If you feel that the existing language in the charter, that part of which was largely derived from the original .ORG establishment RFC, and subsequent definitional documents, should be updated in some way, please propose specific edits for debate.
techsupporter 7y ago
I'm not getting that impression. I own a .org that's neither commercial nor non-commercial; it's for my personal use and has been for the more than two decades I've owned it. Why in .org? Because .org has historically been where "not a business or one of the other domain types" has fallen. The group's FAQ says .org was "originally intended to be run in the interests of non-commercial Internet users," which is true and, in my view, doesn't exclude individuals, even those who want to use a .org for commercial purposes. I read that statement as "we will prioritize the needs of the 'core' of .org users but everyone is welcome." I would strongly doubt that people like Esther Dyson, Michael Roberts, and Katherine Maher got into this group to take .org domains away from individuals or to restrict individuals from using .org. Quite the opposite, I imagine; they, in my bet, want to keep it as it is now.
- bwoodcock 7y ago
  Exactly. If any of you want to suggest language that you feel better conveys the goal, please propose it. We’d like to make the charter as clear and unambiguous as possible.
  - nitrogen 7y ago
    I've seen companies that use their name in .com for external communication, but also own a .org for internal email addresses. How would those be affected?
bwoodcock 7y ago
Not at all... .ORG has always been defined the same way, and that’s always included individuals, families, informal projects, just as much as formally-chartered charities, NGOs, and IGOs. No change is being proposed here. Instead, a formalization and locking-in of existing rights, is being proposed.

wmf 7y ago

.name was created (pretty late) for that purpose but it never really caught on.

zadokshi 7y ago
An email address like bill@gates.name is hardly attractive (I realise this is subjective, but if no one can imagine using the domain like this, then what’s the point of it.) And besides, there are certainly too many people with the same name for this to be practical.

toast0 7y ago

That seems at odds with their mission: > The Cooperative Corporation of dot-org Registrants, or CCOR, is the cooperative organization that seeks to embody and collectively represent the community of dot-org domain name registrants, who will be its members. As a .org registrant that doesn't fit into their enumerated purposes, I don't see how they can claim to represent me. It would also seem at odds with a further commitment: > Ensure that the dot-org domain is not used as a point of control or censorship over the speech or conduct of its registrants or their constituencies. In that it seems to promote the idea that some speech or conduct (such as running a commercial business) should not take place on a .org domain, because of some distinct purpose of the domain.

bwoodcock 7y ago
Well, first of all, you’ve got the same one vote as all other registrants, so you’re neither more nor less represented than any other .ORG registrant. If you feel that the existing language in the charter, that part of which was largely derived from the original .ORG establishment RFC, and subsequent definitional documents, should be updated in some way, please propose specific edits for debate.

techsupporter 7y ago

I'm not getting that impression. I own a .org that's neither commercial nor non-commercial; it's for my personal use and has been for the more than two decades I've owned it. Why in .org? Because .org has historically been where "not a business or one of the other domain types" has fallen. The group's FAQ says .org was "originally intended to be run in the interests of non-commercial Internet users," which is true and, in my view, doesn't exclude individuals, even those who want to use a .org for commercial purposes. I read that statement as "we will prioritize the needs of the 'core' of .org users but everyone is welcome." I would strongly doubt that people like Esther Dyson, Michael Roberts, and Katherine Maher got into this group to take .org domains away from individuals or to restrict individuals from using .org. Quite the opposite, I imagine; they, in my bet, want to keep it as it is now.

bwoodcock 7y ago
Exactly. If any of you want to suggest language that you feel better conveys the goal, please propose it. We’d like to make the charter as clear and unambiguous as possible.
- nitrogen 7y ago
  I've seen companies that use their name in .com for external communication, but also own a .org for internal email addresses. How would those be affected?

bwoodcock 7y ago

Not at all... .ORG has always been defined the same way, and that’s always included individuals, families, informal projects, just as much as formally-chartered charities, NGOs, and IGOs. No change is being proposed here. Instead, a formalization and locking-in of existing rights, is being proposed.