There is a movement afoot to roll out a new gTLD that would be exclusively for charities and non-profit entities.
I know your asking isn’t that what .Org’s are suppose to be for.
The answer to that question is of course, but since the registry never required anyone to prove its non-profit status before obtaining or registering a .Org, its a opened extension.
What is being proposed is a .NGO:
NGO is short for “Non-Governmental Organizations, so the new extension would be for all non-profits except governmental bodies which can use .Gov.
My opinion it’s probably a good idea to have a segregated extension for non-profits if done the proper way, with proper documentation checks an annual rechecks by the registry, with the registry having the right to terminate any registration which falls into non-complaince.
What are you thoughts, does the Internet need a true non-profit extension?
.NGO? My reaction is OMG! 😉
Another extension that nobody needs. Just use .org that perfectly fits the purpose and keep it simple. We always have to think about our customers (users) who will only end up being confused with so many TLDs.
More extensions = more traffic to .com, I say do it please
Non-Government Organization does not automatically imply non-profit. NGI is simply absent government association, sponsorship etc. So Microsoft could be an NGO by definition.
J-
So do like the idea of a non-profit extension and just don’t like the proposed .NGO for it, our do you not support such an extension at all?
Would make ngo.org and ngo.com more valuable…
I agree with Michal, just use .org.
Don’t we have already too many extensions?
.org is perfect for all types of organizations so .ngo sounds dead from the start.
In most developing countries, international NGOs are referred to as INGOs while ‘NGOs’ is mostly applied for local organizations. So logically there should be ‘.ingo’ after ‘.ngo’ is accomplished.
Isn’t ngo short for No Go?
My wife is already confused by all of the tlds.
If she is not sure she will first try .com and/or .org.
As stated above, all Icann is going to do is drive more traffic to the top tlds.
great!..
then the french would want .ONG as well,
since in french, they say:
Organisations Non Gouvernemental
Wonderful world we live in isn’t it?
such diversity 🙂
best,
Ritz
What a dumb idea. If any extension other then dotC OM and local TLDs have caught on with the public- it’s .ORG. Because in your life experience you are going to have a connection to an organization that’s going to be at that extension and thus habitually you associate it with non-profit.
Mike, seems like .org already meets the intent of the proposed .ngo.
(On another note, gotta love all those “not-for-profit” credit reporting, credit repair, college loan entities using .org domains. What scams.)
.NFG
I have spent alot of time in under developed and developing countries. All the “help organisations” there are called NGOs. Most of the guys drive big cars, live in big houses and have a couple of “servants”.
Don’t really see the point in an NGO extension, as .ORg was supposed to cover this imho.
J-
That is why they are saying there needs to be a true extensions for non-profits, administrated with stuff standards so it is pure.
.Org was suppose to be like this, but It was an open registration extension so as you say there are just as many for profit operations on .org than non-profits
Fine, but then they should want .nonprofit, .non, .nonp, etc., if that is their real objective. (Again, Microsoft, like millions of others, are by literal definition NGOs, so their supposed objective remains elusive.) If this group pushing for .NGO has in mind no other extension then its obvious they are just leveraging the presumptive loftiness of non-profit elan and are masking their real objective, which is usually money (profit).
Sure there are some .orgs that may betray the intent of the extension, but amazingly .org is still deemed (and in the majority of cases rightly so) a highly credible extension by most accounts. So because of a minority of renegade .org sites, .NGO is supposedly needed because .org is only mostly credible? That simply is not credible.
Quote –
“That is why they are saying there needs to be a true extensions for non-profits, administrated with stuff standards so it is pure.”
And, who is going to be the judge?
As stated above, different parts of the world have different qualifications for a group to be considered a “non-profit”.
Do you really think the Red Cross wants to use RedCross.ngo ??
(they use .org)
.edu does a pretty good job of policing their tld.
Side note – (and I don’t want to go off on a tangant)
But, every tld of CatholicChurch is owned by a domainer.
And, the largest domainer owns the .org – NameMedia.
Lets call .ngo what it really is, just another money grab.
The promoters of .ngo are just trying to PROFIT from all of the organizations that would need to protect their .org and .com ownership.
Domain
The judge would be the registry which would require documentation before domain registration and hopefully renewal.
.gov is closed.
.edu is pretty closed as well.
.NGO registry is proposed to be operated as a non-profit as well.
To some extent the driver for this sounds like a marketing objective – listing non-profits somewhere based on certified status, to meet consumer demands etc. Academic marketers can address that, but it seems to me the .org is already so far ahead it’s a moot point.
We’re moving towards needing more and more consumer trust signals anyway, so if non-profits want to differentiate themselves they should be on .org AND display a meaningful seal of association that does what this new TLD is saying it will do.
I believe everyone understand .NGO and no one would consider Microsoft an NGO. The term is used for operations like UNICEF, MSF and the alike. Do I see a need for this extension? Nope. Take the money it would cost to operate and run it and give it to a good cause.
Ngo is a very common Vietnamese last name. Can’t wait for the lawsuits if that goes forth.