real on 2 Mar 2001 14:48:11 -0000

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Fury at ICANN/ VeriSign over .org domains

Fury at ICANN/ VeriSign over .org domains
By: Kieren McCarthy
Posted: 02/03/2001 at 12:17 GMT

Furious .org domain name holders have swamped a public forum
set up by ICANN yesterday, angry at proposals that will force them to
hand back their domains unless they register as non-profit
organisations. The proposals come in a suggested new deal with
ICANN from domain monopolist VeriSign. 

In our story yesterday, we expressed our rabid displeasure at
VeriSign (formerly Network Solutions) being handed the keys to the
.com and .net domains for another four years until 2007. The
"justification" for this backroom dealing was that VeriSign would give
up the far less important .org domain registry. 

However, an item we missed entirely - and which forms the bulk of
the discussions on the public forum - is what will happen to .org
domains after VeriSign hands over the registry. The .org TLD will
revert to its original intention as a domain for non-profit

This is too rich for many current .org owners. First of all, VeriSign
walked over the original intention for only non-profit companies to
use .org. It sold domains to just about anyone - as long as they were
willing to pay. Now, when VeriSign decides to ship out so it can
retain control of both .com and .net, the .org domain is to return back
to its roots. 

This is clearly in VeriSign's interests as it would effectively remove
any competition from the .org gTLD, but seeing as .org has become
what it has become, it is in absolutely no one else's interests. Unless
current .org owners register for non-profit status, they will even lose
their domain. This is not only unfair and ridiculous but will spark
hundreds of lawsuits. 

Why on earth does ICANN think the Internet is little more than its

Its attitude really is disgusting. It has extended VeriSign's monopoly
on the two biggest TLDs on the Internet until 2007. This cosy
relationship is contrary to everything the Internet stands for. Of
course, without the money that VeriSign gives ICANN every year,
ICANN would have trouble running. 

And also, why is this deal going through so unnecessarily early? Is it
another example of out-going CEO Mike Roberts giving his old
mates contracts before he is replaced on 13 March? The new blood
- including the new president/CEO Dr M. Stuart Lynn, chairman Vint
Cerf and the At-Large directors - will have their hands tied by the
time they get any real power. 

Posters on the forum have ranged from the confused to the
questioning to the furious. Some have suggested that a new gTLD
(.npo for example) would be a far better solution, rather than kicking
current owners off their domains. Some have threatened lawsuits. All
are unhappy. Of 245 postings currently up there, just ONE agrees
with the proposal. 

He said: "I would support a move by the ICANN to return .org to its
original intended use (per RFC). I interpret this as meaning that .org
domains registered by commercial entities would be declared
invalid. This would go a long way to combat the deliberate moves by
the likes of Network Solutions to create scarcity in domain names, to
their own benefit as name brokers." No one else was in agreement
with him. 

Another poster suggested that the only solution was to go straight to
the US Department of Commerce - the only people that officially stop
the deal going through as suggested. "Let's go over ICANN's head
and stop the deal at Congress instead! You can send email to
Secretary Donald Evans (US D.O.C.) by email at"

An early poster was Mike Roberts - the current president and CEO
of ICANN, soon to be replaced - who tired to clarify the situation. "I
would like to post a general response to this concern. The need for
an appropriate transition period for the .org registry to
non-commercial status is fully recognized by those working on the
proposed agreements. Should the agreements be approved, ICANN
will conduct an open process through which the interests of all those
affected by a change in .org policies will be respected. Mike
Roberts, ICANN". Posters were not impressed or persuaded. 

What follows are some of the more informative postings. The forum
itself is here.  

"If you grandfather existing .org domains, I don't have a major
problem with this proposal. If, however, ICANN attempts to force
existing .org domain holders to comply to USA-specific definitions of
non-profit corporations, there will be a serious backlash. And I'll be
part of it. Org has been recommended by IANA as the namespace
for personal domains for some time. is valuable to me,
personally, as I've had this domain for five years and am widely
associated with it. 

"I provide a small freenet service to anyone who asks me for access,
and host a number of other .org domains (such as
which is non-profit in operation, albeit not a US-based non-profit
corporation). To remove my right to my own .org domain will do me
considerable professional damage (both to my reputation on the net
- I'm a journalist - and by removing my long-standing contact
information). It'd also do damage to this religious organisation, who I

"I'm afraid if this proposal goes through without any consideration I
will have to ask my lawyer about my options for legal redress against
ICANN. All I know is that I won't be the only one ..." 

"Like numerous other netizens, I selected a .org domain for my
personal web presence to distinguish myself from a corporate entity.
The current system allows for no alternative. Your message refers to
'non-commercial status', but the proposed changes specifically state
that .org will become a domain 'for the specific use of non-profit

"I am deeply concerned that my long-established .org presence on
the Internet will be disrupted; I will be burdened with the hardship of
having to inform numerous entities of the change, there are people
who will slip through the cracks who will never be informed of the
change (and thus lose track of me), and (as past experience has
taught me) it will be at least 6-12 months before popular search
engines are updated." 

"Restoring .org to non-profit organizations is a good idea on the
surface, but it's way, way, way too late. And with .com for
businesses, and .net supposedly for network providers, where am I
supposed to go?" 

"I am not a non-profit organization but I have a .org domain name.
While I may not be a legal non-profit organization, I do not make
money from my Web site, and I do non-profit work for people through
my Web site. If this revision is added I believe that all people who
had registered their domains before the revision should not be
subject to the terms of this. After all I've paid for my domain name,
and I chose my domain name for a reason. Why should I suffer
simply because you have decided to make changes? Anyways that
is just my opinion on this matter." 

"Here is a company that stole publicly-owned information, declared it
proprietary, disallowed the public to use it, and then, dashing salt
into an already stinging wound, decided to sell that information for
the very purpose it restricted access to it in the first place, and you
want to hand them yet another ticket on the gravy train? For shame." 

"The purpose of ICANN was to introduce competition into the sale of
domain names. Yes, we have all heard the story of what a wonderful
job NSI has done in opening up the market. But, it is all a bunch of
lies! They still make $6 off the sale of every domain name regardless
of who is selling it. This doesn't sound like competition to me... this
sounds like job security. 

VeriSign should NOT be given unlimited control of '.com' until the
following steps are taken: 
1) ICANN is given full control of the database and the root servers. 
2) Hundreds of new top level domains are in place and being sold by
independent registries (like IOD's .web) that are not paying NSI or
VeriSign any money at all. 
3) The Membership At Large is given the chance to elect the
remaining four Board Members that were promised 2 years ago. 
4) The squatters on the ICANN Board have resigned their positions. 
5) ICANN conducts all meetings in an open and transparent way and
there is public input regarding the decisions that are made at such
6) Expired domain names that are being 'held ransom' by NSI and
auctioned off on their site '' must be put back into
the pool and be available to purchase again at base cost ($35

Nettime-bold mailing list