At 07:36 PM 4/11/99 -0400, you wrote: >Molly E. Shaffer a écrit: > >> Have you been in contact with the Internet Society? I see that they >> have also posted something at >> http://www.isoc.org/internet/issues/dns/990409.shtml. > >No, I haven't. I am collaborating only with organizations that are >truly non-commercial. ISOC is not, for all it pretends, a >representative of non-commercial domain name holders, as the list at >that URL proves. Those organizations may themselves be incorporated >as non-profit corporations, but their members are commercial >enterprises. The POC's members, for example, are mostly European >ISPs; and the membership of the AUI are principally engaged in >e-commerce. Far from allying with them, the ICIIU may argue that >they have no right to membership in the NCDNHC. I would certainly concur with that. What's shown is yet another international cabal of shakers and movers. I understand "non- commercial" to be people, not organizations. > >What ISOC is trying to do is to co-opt the NCDNHC for the same >interests that are organizing the commercial constituencies. This >was foreseen and bound to happen. The big business and trademark >interests want to control and dominate the DNSO utterly, and they >will attempt to take over every constituency for themselves. Exactly true. > >But this is not your problem. It isn't your job to decide who has >the right to organize a constituency and who doesn't. You need >merely post every notice of an organization process that comes to >your attention. By maintaining a strict objectivity in that way, you >will be protected from accusations of dicrimination and unfairness. The processes for naming these various special interest groups reflects what one sees in Oregon with respect to ballot titles. Such as: a group calling itself "Save Our Animals" turns out to be a gun lobby pushing for a .30-.30 in every pickup gun rack, right above the beer. Don't believe most of what you may encounter from anybody -- that's what the net has come to. Bill Lovell
