[ga] Re: Not All "ccTLDs" are "Businesses" (was Re: PROBLEM with NCDNHC Constituency bylaws)

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Vany and all,

  I think this is a very good suggestion.  I would point out that it is
likely that BOth is the answer.  However this does not settle the
question of the subject of this thread.  SOme non-profits are indeed
non-commercial, depending of the legal definition in the jurisdiction
in which they reside and by trade agreement that exists with that
host country and the US.  Other non-profits are NOT non-commercial
for the same or similar reasons....

Vany Martinez wrote:

> Hi to all:
>
> I think would be worth to ask to ICANN with what purposes was
> created the NCDNHC concept:  for non-commercial, for
> non-profit, or for both.
>
> Best Regards
> Vany
> :-)
>
> >  Bill and all, J. William Semich (NIC JWS7) wrote: Hello; I have a few
> >response to Milton's comments about ccTLDs who are noncommercial: At 12:59
> >PM 7/29/99 -0400, Milton wrote:
> >>
> >>Many ccTLDs, and almost all registrars and ISPs are commercial businesses.
> >Even if
> >>they are "non-profit" businesses their economic and political interests
> >can be
> >>very different from the consumers of their services. There is a definite
> >conflict
> >>of interest, especially with TLD registries. TLD registries control the
> >supply of
> >>names and benefit economically from the payments for registration. They
> >may be
> >>willing to impose policies on domain name holders that make life easier for
> >>themselves, but are hostile to the user. Also, ccTLDs may prefer to limit
> >>competition from new TLDs, whereas users may support it. "ccTLDs" can not
> >be represented by a single structure or concept. Like
> >everything else in the world, the structure and operations and even the
> >"personal identity" of the various entities and organizations you have
> >lumped into the single basket "ccTLDs" is not quite so clear. Many
> >different organizations have been assigned the "responsibility" for a TLD
> >in the ISO 3166 name space (ccTLDs). But not all of these are
> >"operationally responsible" for the registration of domain names or even
> >for handling money or overseeing transactions. Some - like ISOC-NZ, and
> >IUS-N, - are not even in the business of accepting domain name
> >registrations.
> >   To the extent that these "Type" of
> >ccTLD's operate in this fashion, it might be necessary or advantageous
> >for those entities to consider for the purposes of membership of a
> >  However
> >for those that are not engaged in these sort of activities exclusively
> >they would not fit the as a non-commercial entity legally. They exist to
> >promote the use of, education of end users
> >about, and generally support development of, the Internet in their
> >localities. The operational aspects of the TLD registration process are
> >managed by separate, private, organizations (either under contract,
> >license, etc) and the commercial part of the operation is totally separate
> >from the non-profit organizaiton which has been delegated to oversee the
> >TLD by IANA. You cannot, with a single brush, paint all "ccTLDs" as driven
> >by commercial
> >interests or needs. Many of us are, instead, driving to build the Internet.
> >That is the primary purpose of IUS-N, in fact. Would you also exclude
> >hospitals, blood banks, community organizations that
> >have fund raisers, libraries that charge for overdue books or rent best
> >sellers, community healt care centers funded by corporate fund drives, the
> >United Way, etc., all because their activities 'touch" the commercial side
> >of life?
> >  As consideration for membership to constituency, the answer here is YES,
> >defiantly as they are engaged to some degree or another in COMMERCIAL
> >  Therefore we [INEGroup] have suggested that
> >a new Constituency may be needed such as a NON-PROFIT constituency. It
> >appears some on the list are considering excluding Universities
> >as well. So I'll ask - who will be allowed into the NCDNHC?
> >  Only those organizations that are non-commercial or otherwise have NO
> >  Possibly some of these organizations would best
> >  Some may not of course, but would also
> >not be non-commercial and therefore do not qualify for the NCDNHC
> >either.   Certainly, if an entity is organized as a non-profit, with a
> >completely
> >non-commercial orientation (not an association of businesses, or a trade
> >show created to help promote businesses) and can show evidence it is such,
> >that should be the primary criteria for membership.
> >  This depends on the legal interpretation of the term "orientation", I
> would
> >say with respect to their jurisdictional status.   >I asked this question
> >in Berlin, and no one could provide a good answer.
> >So I will
> >>ask it again: when ccTLD operators tell us that they should be allowed in
> the
> >>non-commercial constituency, I ask--why are not universities and
> >non-commercial
> >>groups allowed into the ccTLD constituency? When the traffic goes both
> >ways, then
> >>we can consider letting them in. Until then, No. I can answer that
> >question, Milton. Anyone who qualifies is permitted to
> >join the ccTLD constituency. No one is excluded for also having some other
> >affiliation or for being in some other DNSO constituency. The traffic goes
> >both ways.
> >   It may not be
> >OK, in as much as they have "Voting Rights"...   Please, Milton, look
> >closely at the list of entities, organzations and
> >individuals who are members of the ccTLD Constituency of the DNSO. It
> >includes: Universities, Health Care providers, research organizations,
> >commercial organizations, individuals, non-profit charities, a whole slew
> >of other kinds of non-profits, even a couple of college professors and an
> >attorney or two. No one has been excluded because of their "non-ccTLD"
> >affiliations. Yet you are proposing to exclude from the NCDNHC anyone who
> >*does* meet the requirements for membership, but who also has a non-NCDNHC
> >affiliation. This appears both illogical and unfair to me.
> >   The
> >IRS certainly doesn't.   The NCDNHC should be open to anyone who qualifies
> >as well. The interests of
> >IUS-N are noncommercial interests. The interests of many other "ccTLDs' are
> >also noncommercial, and meet all the membership requirements of the NCDNHC.
> >They should be allowed to become active and contributing members of the
> >NCDNHC.
> >  Yes they should if and only if their activities qualify legally in the
> >jurisdiction
> >in which they are situated, as non-commercial, otherwise I must agree with
> >Milton on this point.   Exclusionary membership polices are not in the
> >interests of the Internet....
> >  Constituency's by their very nature are exclusionary at some point.
> >Best wishes, Bill Semich
> >Member, pNC ---
> >You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org
> > Regards, --
> >Jeffrey A. Williams
> >Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
> >CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
> >Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> >E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> >  972-447-1894
> >Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
> >
> Nilda Vany Martinez Grajales
> Especialista en Tecnología de Informacion/Asistente Administrativa
> Red de Desarrollo Sostenible de Panama
> Tel.:  (507) 230-4011 ext 213
>        (507) 230-3455
> Fax:   (507) 230-3646
> e-mail: vany@polux.sdnp.org.pa
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1799I@lyris.isoc.org

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208