[Comment-Dnso] Re: [IFWP] Re: [dnso.discuss] Modifications to ICIIU Guidelines a nd NCDNHC definition

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 21:25 1/06/1999 -0400, John Charles Broomfield wrote:

>For any constituency to have a defined membership, if you want to *impose*
>restrictions on it, then there have to be a series of OBJECTIVE and
>verifiable criteria that can be applied on those members. I have the feeling
>that "non-commercial domain holders constituency" is something very fuzzy
>and un-enforceable. If you can't enforce it, don't try. Instead list
>guidelines and recomendations which are up to each individual
>company/person/organization to decide whether it adheres to them or not.
>It's too big a can of worms otherwise (as you continue to prove).
>

This has been exactly my point at the meeting in Berlin.
Trying to define non-commercial as a negative is a can of worms.
The NCDNHC should be defined in a positive sense: the constituency for
Domains for schools, universities, hobbyist and philantropic organizations,
etc.
Better would be a simple objective definition that excludes individuals, so
that they can find their own representation in a special constituency that
does not care what part of their websites is commercial or potentially
commercial and  what part is not.
The duality of the individual DN is a typical phenomenon of the internet
that has not been recognized by the old telco- and IP interests and by half
the members of the interim ICANN Board. 

--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/