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.
Those aren't necessarily equivalent definitions. Stef's is independent of
what level of the DNS domains reside in, while 'NIC' would likely be
understood as 'registry' and exclude ISP-assigned domains.
>
> > 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?
>
I'm thinking about it.
________________________________________________________
NetZero - We believe in a FREE Internet. Shouldn't you?
Get your FREE Internet Access and Email at
http://www.netzero.net/download.html
