.Org to loose credibility over .NGO?

The BIG difference is the NGO "vetting process" already exist at the state and national level, worldwide.

ITS A GOVERNMENT "VETTING" PROCESS THE .NGO REGISTRY WOULD ONLY VERIFY.

And its nothing like .biz. The NGO legal framework goes back to 1945 -when the U.N. needed a way to 'vet' non-governmental organizations to give a seat at the table.

NGO is like NFL, or MLB. Sure you have to "say each letter", but when anybody can set-up a team, or an organization, being able to say your a NFL / MLB team, or have NGO Status, seperates the pros from the little leagues.

.org is a web (anomally) classification. Virtually every other form of non-profit communication -from tax forms to academia, newspaper stories, internal reports and public brochures, identifies them as an "NGO". The transition from .org won't take long... as .org was a forced re-branding... that allowed others to pimp the credibility the NGO community earned. Shedding that skin to present a consistant "brand" message will be embraced.

It short, the .ngo gTLD is unique. I generally agree with some of the points when applied to other new extensions.

sdsinc said:

Fact: Extensions that have restrictions and red tape (including vetting of applicants) never took off.
Plenty of examples: .coop .pro (in the post), .museum, .jobs etc

Let's look at .pro, it was supposed to be the vetted version of .com. We all know the deal on that.

PIR should concentrate on .org, .ngo is complete nonsense.
NGOs fit nicely in .org and don't need anything else.

Click to expand...

eyedomainous said:

...The NGO legal framework goes back to 1945 -when the U.N. needed a way to 'vet' non-governmental organizations to give a seat at the table...

Click to expand...

To see how .ngo will fare, just look at .int. dot Int is a much more exclusive and trustworthy domain for international treaty organizations over dot org. But who uses .int for their primary web identity? Almost no one.

The UN uses UN.org; They "own" un.int, but it does not resolve. www.un.int does resolve, but it takes you to an obscure members page.

WorldBank.int forwards to WorldBank.org

redcross.int does not resolve. www.redcross.int takes you to the "magazine" of the red cross movement.

unesco.int does not resolve. www.unesco.int forwards to a unesco member page. The main site is unesco.org.

The list goes on and on. Check out the following organizations and see which ones use .org as their primary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_organizations_with_.INT_domain_names

I only found one counterexample -- wipo.org forwards to wipo.int

.ngo will follow a similar path to .int. The .ngo tld will probably operate just fine, but it will be largely unknown to anyone -- for the same reasons .int is anonymous (and thus unsuccessful).

jagusa said:

dot Int is a much more exclusive and trustworthy domain for international treaty organizations over dot org.

Click to expand...

You lost me here.
Perhaps the least "trustworthy" statement of the thread.

eyedomainous said:

You lost me here.
Perhaps the least "trustworthy" statement of the thread.

Click to expand...

.int has perhaps the strictest registration requirement of any tld, a UN treaty number. If you type in a .int domain (and knew that .int had an chartered intent), you can trust that you will get a very specific type of organization.

defaultuser said:

The .org would never be second class to .ngo in my opinion. Major sites/medium sites would never move (they may redirect the NGO).

Why would a charity care if its domain name seemed sub-standard because of extension?

A lot of NGOs have a bad reputation because of the politics they inherently carry with them. Some of the work done in terms of foreign aid, for example, comes with strings attached.

An .org avoids the political prejudices.

Now if you are a REAL NGO and not just a non-profit then I would keep an awareness; however, if .NGO is true to their word and your organization is somewhat unique would someone be able to take the name from you? The idea is that cyber-squatting/cyber-investing would be removed at registration through validation (not that this will always be the case).

Click to expand...

I agree 100%. NGO's often have a perception of a political bend, almost all the time to more left and liberal politics. And as you have described many of these are avoided or in some cases classified as terrorist as a result. Would that give you faith in the .ngo extension when some of its users are registered terrorist groups by several leading Western governments?

That said, it is also not important to say that just because of a particular extension the domain is going to be successful or unsuccessful as a whole, one has to take each domain in question.

I also agree that charity's, non-profits, etc. are totally different than .ngo's. I don't think I would ever see PETA, American Cancer Society, Humane Society, etc. try to re-brand around this. This will be a much smaller group.

One thing to keep an eye on though is how the search engine's begin to interpret this. Many believe that .edu and .gov extensions have a lot of power compared to any other. Will the search engines give that credibility to these ones as well? Personally, I don't think so.

Thanks for sharing this news.

Question: Are there even enough NGO's in the world to make this a viable extension?

My Opinion: I think not. All I see are defensive registrations.

Around

40,000 International ones
277,000 in Russia
3,300,000 in India

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-governmental_organization

I see what your saying, but .int is so obscure its intent at trustworthiness can't be compared to the well established trustworthy legacy of the NGO community.

jagusa said:

.int has perhaps the strictest registration requirement of any tld, a UN treaty number. If you type in a .int domain (and knew that .int had an chartered intent), you can trust that you will get a very specific type of organization.

Click to expand...

stub said:

Question: Are there even enough NGO's in the world to make this a viable extension?

Click to expand...

Because of new gTLD cost issues, the desire for a more trustworthy fund-raising platform, and the fact that legal NGOs and NPOs (non-profit orgs) can be easily verified, I would expect both branches of 'civil society' would be able to reg a .ngo... though there could well be a .ngo and a .npo.

eyedomainous said:

Because of new gTLD cost issues, the desire for a more trustworthy fund-raising platform, and the fact that legal NGOs and NPOs (non-profit orgs) can be easily verified, I would expect both branches of 'civil society' would be able to reg a .ngo... though there could well be a .ngo and a .npo.

Click to expand...

And they'll still want the .com - like the Whitehouse

gpmgroup said:

40,000 International ones
277,000 in Russia
3,300,000 in India

Click to expand...

I'm supposed to "trust" 3.3 million organizations in India? I'm supposed to trust Wikipedia?

I would love to see someone validate each one of those if they chose to reg their .NGO!

I have no issues with .NGO if they say applications will be based on a vetting process and mandatory government approval and entity validation.

These days, people look for TRUSTWORTHY websites. But then, you must do a massive campaign of informing the entire planet that .NGO sites are trustworthy since applicants are screened using very rigid standards.

This is where .PRO failed. With .PRO, they relaxed the standards (perhaps to allow speculators to hostage and trade .PRO domain names so the registry owners will make money). Which means you can have AssLicker.PRO or WindowWasher.PRO as long as it pertains to a source of professional income. So supposedly, if you own AssLicker.PRO, you are a trustworthy ass... well, you know.

And if .NGO ever enforces their strict standards, this means DOMAINERS are disqualified from even owning one. If your NGO goes bust, you should be forced to drop the domain and you cannot resell it to above reg fee.

stub said:

I think not. All I see are defensive registrations.

Click to expand...

You won't need defensive registrations if each NGO has to be verified. Worst case another "good cause" would have your name.

I would trust .org over .ngo anytime (how do you even pronounce ngo. what a crappy extension lol)

gpmgroup said:

40,000 International ones
277,000 in Russia
3,300,000 in India

Click to expand...

Exactly. What do you reckon it costs to register an NGO in a developing world country? There may soon be an industry for setting up shell NGOs offshore. Lots of charities sell things, there is nothing wrong with that as long as they are not paying out to shareholders or others, in theory.

Belize Innoculations = bi.ngo

Usually when a charity shuts down it has to dispose of its assets correctly, meaning largely the people running the charity should not have direct financial benefit.

The NGO registry could just make the domains non-transferable. But once you hand someone the keys to your hosting, they can do what they like. Does anyone seriously think a registry is going to spend its time arguing with registrants about whether their monetisation is appropriate? That probably is a complex matter of local law.

Does anyone remember how sham companies were used to get .eu names?

A registry has running costs, no matter how well-intentioned they might sound at the start, if there is a shortfall they have to get the money in from somewhere. So in that case they can put up registration fees, or seek a larger volume of registrations from somewhere, which might mean promotion or a softening of standards.

PIR, the folks that run the .org registry are the ones filing the .ngo application, precisely because it would be more trustworthy.

.org will still be viable, but will certainly lose credibility... as the domain of unwashed orgs.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfjOSD5Wbuk"].ORG IS TOAST![/ame]

Steven said:

I would trust .org over .ngo anytime (how do you even pronounce ngo. what a crappy extension lol)

Click to expand...

A dynamic that hasn't been directly discussed yet is that acquiring a good domain, a generic .com or .org, requires serious work. Only the most successful organizations will be able to acquire a name like red.org or heart.org. Presumably any two-bit, peripherally-related operation could obtain red.ngo or heart.ngo. The barrier of entry created by market forces lends more credibility to a web identity than any bureaucratic filter. Dot org will be just fine. Dot ngo will face the same uphill climb that every other new tld has faced -- none have broken through so far... but PIR can hope.

April004 said:

information will be verified before accepting the domain registration

Click to expand...

No it won't, not for long. Either greed or economic necessity (due to lack of .ngo registrations), or both, will cause this requirement to be lifted.

Market forces do not 'lend credibility' to NGOs. Their value is based on a commitment to values beyond financial profit.

As with .org, NGOs mostly deal with the negative by-products of 'market forces' in service to humanity and the global, and virtual, commons.

It is they who lead the fight against the market forces that try to take over the web, as well as the forests, and oceans, species, minerals and man... for the illusion of "profit".

So red.ngo will likely go to the Red (Cross) Crescent, and heart.ngo to American Heart Association -based on the Value of Their Work, though the size of their donor-based pocket book is an important consideration.

jagusa said:

A dynamic that hasn't been directly discussed yet is that acquiring a good domain, a generic .com or .org, requires serious work. Only the most successful organizations will be able to acquire a name like red.org or heart.org. Presumably any two-bit, peripherally-related operation could obtain red.ngo or heart.ngo. The barrier of entry created by market forces lends more credibility to a web identity than any bureaucratic filter. Dot org will be just fine. Dot ngo will face the same uphill climb that every other new tld has faced -- none have broken through so far... but PIR can hope.

Click to expand...

eyedomainous said:

.org will still be viable, but will certainly lose credibility... as the domain of unwashed orgs.

Click to expand...

Hundreds of NGOs worldwide from Red Cross to Amnesty International have been known under .org for over two decades.

Now you're saying .org is no longer credible ? So all those NGOs are going to migrate ?
Ditch an extension that has been around for 25 years, now that makes sense.
It's like saying the airline industry should move to .aero or that museums will naturally want to be in .museum, or that .travel will be the gold standard the travel industry.

The so-called trust factor doesn't really apply, because people are not familiar with more than a few 'usual' extensions ie .com/.net/.org + ccTLD.
So when they see a strange URL with an unknown ending, they will instinctively think it's fuzzy and not trust it as much.
For example few people have an idea that .jobs even exists. And even fewer know that .jobs is restricted and presumably more trustworthy. The restrictions do not boost confidence because regular Internet users are not aware of the requirements.

The public simply trusts the extensions that are used by the well-known and trusted entities, that is .org for non-profit including NGOs.

I wouldn't take the advertorial comments seriously. If you asked webmasters about .web many would say it's 'cool' but that doesn't mean they are seriously contemplating it. It's for the 'others', not them.

Why are we even debating this ?

billions of marketing dollars will have to go into .ngo to have any street cred.

I agree with sdinc above comment.

The factor that will make or break .ngo is not trust but exposure, and the only way it will get exposure is if a significant number of the largest .org sites not only get a .ngo but move their web presence to it (which wouldn't be a small endeavor for many of them). If that were to even happen, at the likely pace that it would happen, it would probably take more than a decade for .ngo to damage .org in any way. Otherwise, visitors would still expect organizations to be on .org instead of .ngo, and newer organizations understanding that would stick with .org over .ngo.

This is going to be the case for many of these new TLDs. Some people erroneously believe that either a .com killer will be among them (or is .co) or that the sum of them will kill .com, but for that to happen, very little will matter on what new businesses do but what the largest existing businesses do, and thus far we've seen very very few migrations of existing major businesses away from .com. Overstock tried it and moved right back when their experiment failed.

So - basically what sdsinc said.

sdsinc said:

Hundreds of NGOs worldwide from Red Cross to Amnesty International have been known under .org for over two decades.

Now you're saying .org is no longer credible ? So all those NGOs are going to migrate ?
Ditch an extension that has been around for 25 years, now that makes sense.
It's like saying the airline industry should move to .aero or that museums will naturally want to be in .museum, or that .travel will be the gold standard the travel industry.

The so-called trust factor doesn't really apply, because people are not familiar with more than a few 'usual' extensions ie .com/.net/.org + ccTLD.
So when they see a strange URL with an unknown ending, they will instinctively think it's fuzzy and not trust it as much.
For example few people have an idea that .jobs even exists. And even fewer know that .jobs is restricted and presumably more trustworthy. The restrictions do not boost confidence because regular Internet users are not aware of the requirements.

The public simply trusts the extensions that are used by the well-known and trusted entities, that is .org for non-profit including NGOs.

I wouldn't take the advertorial comments seriously. If you asked webmasters about .web many would say it's 'cool' but that doesn't mean they are seriously contemplating it. It's for the 'others', not them.

Why are we even debating this ?

Click to expand...

That.

I haven't read the whole thread but since when can't an organization make money and create profit ?

Take a while for the critical mass to make any changes in attitude ... if ever

The Red Cross uses .int, not .org (for two decades). The Red Cross has been an NGO since 1863, and Amnesty International since 1961. In other words, like most NGOs, they have been officially classified as an NGO far longer than their web association with .org.

NGO is an official, legal, classification -like "Doctor" or "Lawyer", or "NFL". The fact that they had to use a .com or .org for two decades does not mean anybody will have a problem associating them with their actual trade mark when their site resolves to .DR or .LAW or .NFL. Most people will think thats pretty cool. And if they don't see .law your not really a lawyer... as a very helpful, useful, change.

As .org will run the .ngo registry resolving NGO .org sites to .ngo would be seamless, and go smoothly, and give them a platform to explain why .ngo is a more credible and trustworthy extension that will help NGOs in their work.

Another key factor is NGOs are expert, tireless, campaigners who will relish the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment to credibility. Most have a tight member base, and will be able to get celebrities and the media to champion "the cause".

These, and other, key factors will distinguish .ngo from most other new domain extensions... and assure its place in people's minds for the rest of dot-time.

25 years is nothing compared to the history before and the future to come. And internet associations have been known to change at light speed. Myspace to Facebook comes to mind.

sdsinc said:

Hundreds of NGOs worldwide from Red Cross to Amnesty International have been known under .org for over two decades.

Now you're saying .org is no longer credible ? So all those NGOs are going to migrate ?
Ditch an extension that has been around for 25 years, now that makes sense.
It's like saying the airline industry should move to .aero or that museums will naturally want to be in .museum, or that .travel will be the gold standard the travel industry.

The so-called trust factor doesn't really apply, because people are not familiar with more than a few 'usual' extensions ie .com/.net/.org + ccTLD.
So when they see a strange URL with an unknown ending, they will instinctively think it's fuzzy and not trust it as much.
For example few people have an idea that .jobs even exists. And even fewer know that .jobs is restricted and presumably more trustworthy. The restrictions do not boost confidence because regular Internet users are not aware of the requirements.

The public simply trusts the extensions that are used by the well-known and trusted entities, that is .org for non-profit including NGOs.

I wouldn't take the advertorial comments seriously. If you asked webmasters about .web many would say it's 'cool' but that doesn't mean they are seriously contemplating it. It's for the 'others', not them.

Why are we even debating this ?

Click to expand...

sdsinc said:

Why are we even debating this ?

Click to expand...

For a laugh.

Or to help PIR fine tune their arguments by listening to all the possible objections. So they can optimise the sales pitch.

One other point: not everyone uses org. I just can't see all the groups using .org.uk going from a recognisable country code to an unknown transnational TLD where they might not even have an exact match name. That would only bring them negatives.