ICANN Recommends ISOC Run .org TLD

Amazing Quantum Man writes "According to ZDNet, ICANN has issued a report recommending that ISOC run the .org TLD. It looks like ISOC would run .org in conjunction with Afilias." mesozoic points out that ISOC is a non-profit organization composed of many for-profit heavyweights, writing "I'm not surprised; are you?" This preliminary report may be disappointing to those who hoped that Paul Vixie and Carl Malamud would be successful in their bid to head up .org.

Comments

This is bad how?

[madprof]

ISOC has many representatives from large companies on its books.
So it represents no one company, and when it does something it will do it with industry backing.
This is a Good thing.
Exactly what can be done with the .org TLD that is going to be so bad anyhow?
It is already open to anyone, regardless of whether they are non-profit or not.

Bad choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as how isoc.org is already slashdotted, I'd have to question wether they can handle running .org.

Nice to see that ICANN stays close to home...

[CrazyDuke]

...I'd hate to see a US governmental agency responcible for policy making not backing (and being backed by I bet) big business. How much you wanna bet some "contributions" are involved. Especially so since they kicked out just about everyone that isn't a poly wanna dollar politition or a corporate suit.

I bet its just a front for a corporate trust.

ISOC is also made up of individuals

[cerberusti]

I am a member of ISOC. As long as I have been a memeber, ISOC has never done anything shady. I think them getting control of .org is a VERY GOOD THING. Become informed before you bash them, I challenge anyone to come up with anything ISOC has done that harmed the internet community.

Re:ISOC is also made up of individuals

[sconeu]

This guy has a point. AFAIK, ISOC is also in charge of IAB and IETF. If you're worried about ISOC's membership, then you should worry about your Internet Standards.

Then join

[cerberusti]

Just so you know anyone can join ISOC. If you are concerned, join ISOC.

An ISOC Member

because...

[Doktor Memory]

...alternic is a fraud. The entire operation, domain name and trademark included, was stolen from Kashpureff via a lawsuit by one of his ex-partners. I wouldn't trust them to shine my shoes, much less run my root servers.

.ORG Should b e Organizations/like only

[dh003i]

.ORG sites should not be for corporate plundering.

Every time some corporations like the RIAA or MPAA owns a .ORG, it cheapens .ORG. Yes, the RIAA and the MPAA are BUSINESSES, not organizations. Non-profit my ass, Jack Valentini and Hillary Rosen are racking in the money.

Now, I'm not saying that any corporation that owns a .ORG should be forced to relinquish it, but in the future, .ORG's should not be given to corporations unless they're using them in a .ORG-like way. I.e., if IBM sets up a IBM.org site to be used as a forum for initiating issues movements (i.e., the freedom of a product) for IBM-related products.

I have no problem with MS owning microsoft.com, microsoft.org, and microsoft.net, so long as they use those sites in a way true to their "extention". MS.com should be MS' commercial outlet. MS.net should be their network outlet; i.e., a forum for users to discuss their issues. MS.org should be for ideological movements within MS, which (in this case) would be MS' propaganda machine.