Is .org reserved for non-profit only companies?

Just want to be sure before buying...

[ajs83]

I am considering a domain name which is a .org for my business, but someone said it was against the laws to have a for profit business on that domain. Is this true?

[ajs83]

No one?

[arran]

Hi ajs,

It used to be percieved this way but there is no law to this effect.
Many people use .org for commercial purposes - you will have no problems.

arran

[tigger]

law what law? I've seen loads of sites using .org domains go for it

[andye]

I am considering a domain name which is a .org for my business, but someone said it was against the laws to have a for profit business on that domain. Is this true?

Nope.

From the registry:

4. Who is allowed to register .ORG names?

.ORG has always been -- and will continue to be -- an open and unrestricted domain. Anyone is allowed to register and use .ORG domain names.

ICANN requires that .ORG remain an open and unrestricted domain.

PIR sees .ORG as an important resource and advocates strongly for .ORG's use as the home for noncommercial, non-profit and NGO interests on the Internet. Most Internet users expect to find noncommercial, non-profit and NGO sites in .ORG.

hth, a.

[ajs83]

Thanks!

[Corey Bryant]

I beleive it used to be like that when this all started but I have one & I am not an NPO. You'll be fine

-Corey

[madmac]

Yeah there is no law.... however, having a .org domain does give the impression of being non-commercial or non-profit... I would have to seriously question the ethics of a business buying a .org domain for a clearly commercial purpose.

[John Carpenter]

I would have to seriously question the ethics of a business buying a .org domain for a clearly commercial purpose.

Exactly. A purely commercial site using an .org domain name would make the impression that it could be some kind of scam.

[twist]

Most people have .org for their .com or .net so no else does. For example,

You start a website under the name example.com where you sell cheap flowers to orphans. A hardcore porn company, seeing the amount of traffic you are getting tries to cash in and buys up example.org and example.net which are just redirects to their real porn site. So anyone that types in the wrong extension or clicks on the wrong link for your website might find themselves looking at porn. Then see how much money the porn company wants to charge to sell you the .org and .net for your website. Cheaper just to pick up the .net, .org, .info, and .com in the first place than trying to bye them back later.

[richlowe]

I would have to seriously question the ethics of a business buying a .org domain for a clearly commercial purpose.

Why? There are no restrictions on .ORG of any kind. That's like saying you wouldn't build an office building in a location because ten years ago it was zoned as non-commercial.

[nagpass]

the poster didn't say it was because there are restrictions on .ORG. he also didn't say it was because there used to be. so it isn't like saying you wouldn't build an office building in a location because ten years ago it was zoned as non-commercial.

[nagpass]

it seems obvious, regardless of present or past regulation, that _existing_ levels of perception amongst a public & the possibility of those perceptions being taken advantage is the cause of stances taken on previous page.

in a climate where so many percieve .ORG's to be for charities & other NPO's, and where it's widely known they do - even acknowleged by official sources in the official documents - it's not hard to see why the ethical integrity of for-profit sites sitting on .ORGs could be doubted by some, and for what reasons.

i'm not typing to make the points but to outline them having been made.. and to say they seem to have nothing to do with whether it's allowed.. is something ethically sound just because it isn't forbidden?

[madmac]

Thank you for taking the time to post that. That was pretty much my line of thinking for posting why I think it would be unethical at this point in time.

>> is something ethically sound just because it isn't forbidden?

I realize this was a rhetorical question, but just wanted to add that no, it is not. To most people there is a difference between what is legally allowed to be done, and what is ethical to do.

[John Carpenter]

is something ethically sound just because it isn't forbidden?

Precisely. It's ok if an .org domain redirects to its .com sister, but having an .org domain as the primary when you're a commercial entity, that'd be kind of strange.