Michael and all,
The divisiveness continues....
Michael Sondow wrote:
> 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.
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
