John B. Reynolds a �crit:
>
> During the previous NCDNC thread (before it degenerated into moot
> discussions of whether constituencies should exist at all and then fizzled
> out), there appeared to be some disagreement as to whether 'non-profit' was
> equivalent to 'non-commercial' and whether trade associations should be
> eligible. That is what I was alluding to in the last sentence. If you've
> been reading my messages in this thread, it should be clear to you that I
> would oppose any redefinition that would encompass commercial entities.
Yes, I understood that. But I think the definition contained in the
name of the constituency is perfectly adequate: non-commercial
domain name holders. "Commercial" is a term that is legally defined
already, and there's not much that we can do to alter that
definition. In the few cases where a basically non-commercial
website is doing a lot of advertising for other, commercial domains,
a judgement would have to be made, and it's for that reason and
others that I proposed that a DNSO Membership Committee be created
(http://www.iciiu.org/memcomm.htm).
Domain name holders means just what it says.
Non-profit organizations that represent commercial entities are
clearly ineligible. Non-profit and non-commercial are not the same
thing, as you've correctly pointed out. Commerce means trade, the
marketing of products. A domain name holder whose website gives away
free software isn't commercial. One who charges for research
services, even academic or medical research services, and isn't
certified as a non-profit company is commercial. This is pretty
clear.
