On Tue, Jun 01, 1999 at 05:32:25AM +0000, William X. Walsh wrote:
> Bullocks.
>
> Just because the ISOC does things also which are non commercial
> doesn't take away from the fact that most of the advocacy it does in
> this process is on behalf of COMMERCIAL organizations.
1) In fact, the advocacy it does is on behalf of the 6000 or so
INDIVIDUAL members who elect the BoT -- not the 200 or so
organizational members, only some of which are commercial to begin
with.
2) ISOC has consistently argued that the top level domain space is a
public trust -- not exactly a commercial point of view.
3) Using *your* argument -- even if ISOC did advocate a commercial
point of view, that wouldn't mean that it was a commercial
organization. It would be perfectly possible for, say, the Red
Cross to support something that would also benefit commercial
interests. As *you* said, there is a vast difference between being
"non-commercial" and being "anti-commercial". You are in fact
making the same irrational demands on ISOC that you accuse Mr Sondow
of making in general.
4) Many, many clearly non-commercial entities have commercial
corporate sponsors -- the Red Cross, the Sierra Club, the United Way,
Churches, Libraries, Museums, Symphony Orchestras, Schools -- all
have commercial corporate sponsors.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
