If it were open to any non-profit, they would have to devise a unique
way to identify applicants as non-profit -- how to do this for 200+
countries and keep the process simple? PIR/ISOC escaped this by
continuing the existing policy for .org at the time they won the bid
(just let anyone in).
frt rgds
--c.a.
Rebecca MacKinnon wrote:
> For the record, it appears to be a British group spearheading this effort.
> But either way, the same problems would seem to apply.
> I guess this is an interesting
> foreshadowing of the problems people are going to face in creating new
> "community based" gTLDs that would have various requirements attached
> to them,
> and which aspire to be global.
>
> Best,
> Rebecca
>
> On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 5:36 AM, David Cake <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> At 12:19 AM -0300 30/7/09, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Norbert, it seems not to be the worldwide ngo community, but the US
>>> ngo community. Even the concept of "charities" varies widely from
>>> country to country, depending on quite different local laws. This seems
>>> to be a TLD for the 501(c) organizations in the USA and this is it. We,
>>> in the planet outside of those US boundaries, should not bother about
>>> it, I guess.
>>>
>> Yeah, that was sort of my concern. An NGO is not the same as a
>> charity in most jurisdictions. A .ngo gTLD 'for charities only' would not
>> only be of no use to most of the NGOs that I am involved in, but would be
>> mildly annoying.
>> (the requirements for 'tax deductible gift recipient' status (ie an
>> official charity) in Australia are much more stringent than those for a US
>> 501 (c), most NGOs are non-profit organisations, but that isn't the same
>> thing as a charity at all)
>> Seems to be a case where a gTLD is being proposed for a US-centric
>> purpose that should really be served by something under the .us ccTLD,
>> partly as a result of laissez-faire management of the appropriate gTLD.
>> FWIW, .org.au is restricted to non-profits and charities.
>> Cheers
>> David
>>
>
>
>
|
