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).
It is likely that the legal definition of "commercial" varies from country
to country. For the purposes of the NCDNC, we need a uniform definition.
IMO, that definition should be based on the purposes of the organization
involved, not how it uses its domain(s).
>
> Domain name holders means just what it says.
There has already been debate on this list as to exactly what "domain name
holders" means. Is it just those who hold SLD's or lower level domains
issued directly by a TLD registry? Or would reynolds.my-isp.net count?
>
> 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.
>
Trade associations are an excellent example of why formal rules beyond the
one-sentence constituency definition are required. They are generally
membership organizations who do not market products or charge directly for
services, and are typically certified as non-profit. On that basis, they
could credibly claim to be "non-commercial" in the absence of specific
language excluding organizations whose sole purpose is to advance the
interests of commercial entities.
