| Historical Context |
In June 2002, The Internet Multicasting Service and the Internet Software Consortium teamed up to submit a proposal to ICANN to become the .org TLD operator.
At the end of the bidding process, the following 632 comments of support were accounted for at our web site.
In addition to these comments, 389 supporters added a little blue dot to their web sites. Of course,
Googilla kept tracking the dot long after the final tally.
|
 |
Subject: A perfect match
Posted by Lee Wheat at 07.16.02 @ 01.40 PM |
The .org TLD is, supposedly, reserved for non-profit organizations. Having a non-profit run the domain is a perfect match. In addition, ISC knows what they're doing when it comes to running a domain.
|
Subject: The ISC is an excellent choice for running .org
Posted by Garth Minette at 07.16.02 @ 12.35 PM |
I can think of no other group more qualified for the job, given ISC's technical skills and integrity. I support ISC's bid for running the .org TLD.
|
Subject: the good choice
Posted by Emmanuel Dreyfus at 07.16.02 @ 12.35 PM |
It's hard to tell something new after that
much people spoke. I think that ISC/IMS is
probably the best choice for running .org.
|
Subject: Of course! No one better!
Posted by Steve Hultquist at 07.16.02 @ 12.25 PM |
The not-for-profit originators of domain name services actually running the TLD intended for not-for-profit organizations? What an obvious--and great--idea that is! By all means!
|
Subject: Definitely should be a non-profit.
Posted by C. A. Cook at 07.16.02 @ 12.12 PM |
The .org TLD should definitely be a non-profit. It looks like from the ICANN site there are other non-profits also proposing to run the .org TLD. One of them seems to be proposing that the domain owners themselves have a stake in the running of the TLD (UnityRegistry).
I may or may not agree with their outside views (it isn't relevant here), but their idea "to involve .org users as stakeholders in the management of .org" sounds pretty good. Is IMS/ISC also proposing likewise?
I am certainly against a for-profit company running the TLD. But what other factors are there in the choice of one non-profit over another? Technical expertise? Choices of management styles?
-- Craig
a/k/a Blackfeather
|
Subject: Sanity on the horizon?
Posted by Ben Cottrell at 07.16.02 @ 12.08 PM |
Seeing this on a mailing list made my day. If
IMS/ISC runs .org, I believe it will be a large
step towards having a sanely run Internet for
all involved.
|
Subject: Support for ISC bid
Posted by Gregory Hull at 07.16.02 @ 11.58 AM |
I support the ISC bid to be the .org TLD operator.
|
Subject: support for .org as public trust
Posted by Robert Seastrom at 07.16.02 @ 11.49 AM |
Let's not repeat the MAE fiasco -- .org should be run by people whose first priority is keeping their honor, not their quarterly numbers, intact. Who could be better qualified than ISC?
|
Subject: Howard said it best..
Posted by David Pokorney at 07.16.02 @ 11.48 AM |
Keep .org in the public trust...
|
Subject: No better group for the job!
Posted by Tripp Lilley at 07.16.02 @ 11.48 AM |
I can think of no better group for this job. These folks are old hands at making the Internet run for everyone. I wholeheartedly endorse the IMS/ISC bid.
|
Subject: A fantastic idea!
Posted by Ty Sarna at 07.16.02 @ 11.47 AM |
I think having ISC/IMS run .org is a fantastic idea!
|
Subject: Perfect Group for it.
Posted by Ron Jarrell at 07.16.02 @ 11.43 AM |
A fine choice for a group to run .org.
|
|
“Thanks for your support.” - bot
