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 >> > > >