Michael,
On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
> John B. Reynolds a �crit:
> >
> > 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).
>
> Sound logic, there. You're winning this debate, I'm afraid to say.
>
> > 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?
>
> No, it should mean anyone who has actually registered a domain with
> a NIC. Or, as Stef says, anyone with administrative control of a
> zone file.
Actually you may recall that I made the definition in Monterrey of "Write
Permission to a Zone File".
In the RFC 1591 a "Domain Manager" entity is mentioned. That one is the
"Domain Holder" as far as I am concerned.
The Domain Manager has traditionally three individual positions, the
Administrative Contact, who instructs the Technical Contact, and the
Billing Contact. The TC can be a generic/role account.
If all are one person it is called the "Domain Coordinator".
The AC "speaks for the domain". The TC "runs the domain". The BC "pays for
the domain" :-)-O.
>From this follows that the listed AC for a given domain is the "Domain
Holder" or a person delegated by him. That can be the TC or a law firm or
whatever, who should legitimize himself by a written authorization.
This however poses just a tiny weeny little problem to many of those
commercial ccTLDs where the TC-Machine hires a body in-country to fill the
AC spot whereafter he is never heard from again. (Email addresses being
aliases to TC and so on :-)-O).
I recall an argument with the Guadeloupe (sp?) TC in this regard...
> > 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.
>
> I give. How would you word it?
In .NA we have defined second level domains and go from the most specific
to the most general.
I like to keep the Registry out of these decisions as much as possible so
I let the applicants choose, but if I feel they chose wrongly I'll discuss
it with them and usually they follow my lead and some times they insist. I
haven't had a case yet where it was a real problem from either side.
We define .COM.NA as businesses, consulting-firms, institutions,
organizations, individuals and other entities that are engaged in
activities for financial gain to their proprietors. I would put a Trade
Association here.
We define .ORG.NA as institutions, organizations and other entities
engaged in non-profit making activities, typically NGOs. I would put a
Chamber of Commerce here.
We have .CUL.NA where we classify entities which are involved with the
preservation of Namibia's national heritage. (The National Museum which is
actually .GOV.NA falls under .CUL.NA and operates the zone).
We have UNAM.NA. Virtually all schools are GOV.NA. And we have an EDU.NA
that covers "educational institutions not falling under the above". That
comes before .COM.NA and .ORG.NA. Therefor a commercial college of
learning would fall into EDU.NA and not .COM.NA. (This does not address
the question of registration fees at all).
We have .ALT.NA for individuals (non-profit).
And before you ask, we have four domains of individuals that were
established prior to the registry of which two are active at present and
one is, of course, yours truly.
So, to make a long story short, what I suggest is to define the
constituencies (somehow) *AND* prefix the lot with something to the effect
that if an entity fits into more then one, the most specific one is to be
used. And then we leave it to the K*nt to confuse us further.
el
--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse\ / Swakopmund State Hospital
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * | Resident Medical Officer
Private Bag 5004 \ / +264 81 1246733 (c) 64 461005(h) 461004(f)
Swakopmund, Namibia ;____/ Domain Coordinator for NA-DOM (el108)
