Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
> At 10:31 AM 3/18/99 -0600, John B. Reynolds wrote:
>
> >I agree with Michael Sondow. Membership criteria will be a lot
> clearer if
> >we base it on the identity of the domain registrant rather than
> the content
> >of the Web site (if any).
>
> Hmmm, MHSC.NET is the registrant for a number of Domain Names that aren't
> necessarily commercial, yet MHSC certainly is. Almost every ISP is in this
> position. According to your rules, this would also disqualify
> many DNs, who
> are non-commercial, yet their registration is held for them by their ISP.
> My base-line argument is that there is more grey area than you might think
> and there are no such clear lines of demarcation.
Standard practice for most ISPs is to register clients' domains in the
clients' names, not that of the ISP. The practice you describe (assuming I
understand it correctly) would force your clients to abandon their existing
domains and register new ones should they ever decide to change ISPs.
>
> The entire arena of these debates are littered with failed attempts to cut
> such clear lines. IMHO, this is the fundamental flaw with constituency
> based representation. Were DNS gTLD charters enforced then we might have
> some sort of basis for argument. But, they aren't and we don't.
>
Nonetheless, barring a last-minute change of heart by the ICANN board
between now and the 31st, constituency representation is here to stay.
Arguing against it now has little more chance of success and contributes no
more to the process than Ronda Hauben's calls for public-sector operation of
the DNS.
> ___________________________________________________
> Roeland M.J. Meyer -
> e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
> Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
> Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
> ___________________________________________________
> KISS ... gotta love it!
>
>
