That is my definition originally used ORSC constituency
definitions.
It makes perfect sense to me still. Cheers...\Stef
David Schutt wrote:
>
> There was a definition of a domain holder floating around. It was anyone
> with administrative control of a zone file. (whether they did the actual
> editing or not)
>
> David Schutt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 1999 3:24 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Forming a NCDNC
>
> As you know, I find constitutiences to be a very, very bad idea.
>
> But that aside, let's look at your single question: Who gets a vote? In
> particular the question of "does a nomain holder get a vote"?
>
> What constitutes a "domain"?
>
> I suspect everybody will say that the holder of xxx.com holds a domain.
> But what about the holder of yyy.xxx.com?
>
> Why not? Are subdelegated domain holders inferior citizens?
>
> If so, then we've just ruled out everyone such as joe.com.au.
>
> (Ignore the fact that one might infer that joe might be presumed to be
> commercial in the above example. ;-)
>
> --karl--
