Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 184.108.40.206
The Register [theregister.co.uk]
There are two opposing forces at work -- on the one hand there's a need for branding and trademark protection, on the other, there's the obvious need for a lot more domain names. I don't see an easy resolution at all.
joined:Nov 20, 2000
One of my first few purchases was a '.org' domain name - because the '.com' had gone and I wanted the name.
No-one then mentioned that it had to be non-profit. It was a free for all. Now some jerk appears and tries to RETROSPECTIVELY legislate. Totally unacceptable.
If having released the names on one basis that should be it. I have invested heavily in this in good faith.
If they now want a 100% non-profit domain suffix, why not create a new one, and declare it non-profit from the start? No problem with that... the rule is set at the outset so no complaints from anyone.
But to set something like this after people have invested is a disgrace.
.com was to be the only TLD available for general commercial websites. However, it very quickly degraded to where .gov and .edu were the only two TLDs being regulated in accordance with their original purpose.
Trying to retroactively enforce the original TLD restrictions at this point seems stupid and hopeless. Why don't they now try and reposess all the .net domains that aren't owned and used by companies providing/operating/manufacturing internet services and/or infrastructure?
Too little, too late.
I guess that "not for profit" will be defined as registered under US law as a not for profit organiztion. Basically this is US-centric. Where does that leave non - US companies? Same problem with yahoo when they defined "non-profit" the same way. There was no way for a non US org to prove they were non profit, leaving aside that the pay option was not orginally open to non US customers anyway.