At 12:58 AM 6/1/99 -0700, you wrote:
>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.
Yes, but it's the 150 or so commercial organizations (such as Sun, IBM, and
so on) that pay $50,000 a pop that are somewhat troublesome.
>2) ISOC has consistently argued that the top level domain space is a
>public trust -- not exactly a commercial point of view.
THis has been debated to death. The public trust thing is a non-starter.
That way there be dragons.
>3) Using *your* argument -- even if ISOC did advocate a commercial
>point of view, that wouldn't mean that it was a commercial
>organization.
War is peace. Ketchup is a vegetable. ISOC is non commercial.
>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.
Aha. Keep chanting: IBM, DEC, SUN....
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Remember, amateurs built the Ark. Professionals built the Titanic.
