John B. Reynolds a �crit:
>
> There are a number of ways it could be done. One possibility would be to
> use the language in the Washington draft (I.B.3) as a starting point, with
> appropriate additions (e.g. individuals) and deletions (e.g. governments).
> Another would be to admit any individual or not for profit organization or
> group. This suggestion has already generated the objection that some NFPs
> (e.g. trade associations) may not be truly "non-commercial". One could also
> define it negatively as any individual or group not eligible for the
> "commercial and business entities" constituency. Specific wording requires
> some consensus on exactly who should be included.
Is asking for a consensus on the meaning of the constituency
necessary or wise? That will give the commercial DNS interests the
chance to change the nature of this constituency, which is obviously
intended for exactly what it says: non-commercial entities. That's
clear enough: any person or organization using the Internet for
commercial activities is excluded. The definition of commercial
activities is given in various authoritative texts including U.S.
and international trade and commerce laws.
The practice of trying to redefine commonly used English words which
has become prevalent in the dishonest atmosphere of this process is
not going to be extended to a revision of this constituency, the
only one open to the many individuals and organizations that use the
Internet for social, cultural, educational, political, and artistic
activities, and which have a right to participate in the DNSO that
is not going to be deprived them by such tricks.
If any businesses or other commercial entities attempt to worm their
way into the NCDNHC and take it away from its legitimate members,
the ICIIU will ask ICANN, and if needs be the Supreme Court of the
State of California, to throw them out on their ear.
