My understanding is that domain name ownership by an individual, in the case of
eligibility for membership in idno, is to be determined by that person's role
in the control of that Domain. ie: Technical or Administrative contact.
Many individual domain name owners (myself incuded in most cases) do not list
the organization as ourselves when we register, we pick some entity, often a
company that we own, as the name under which to register that Domain.
The key here I believe, is whether the 3rd level domain has been delegated to
the person in the letter you are quoting. If the domain has been delegated to
them, then it is basically the same as saying "redondo.ca.us" "or
"hermosa.ca.us" if the owners of ca.us had delegated the child "redondo" to me
and I was authoritative for that 3rd level domain.
Hmm....
Although this really may not serve our purposes as far as gTLD subdomains are
concerned, in the case of ccTLD children, where the structure of the
nomenclature may typically be different, we might want to consider if we've
left some people out.
Again though, just to make it clear as to my viewpoint: Although you may have
NSI "Host" your domain for a fee - they have not delegated it's authority to
you. You therefore are marginal (I'm being exceedingly nice here) with respect
to eligibility in my view of the matter, yet, permitted nevertheless to apply
for and be accepted into the general membership of IDNO. This has only been a
phenomena since about 1994 or 5 when people started providing "hosting
services" before that from the early 90's, we all ran our own domains.
Converseley, a third level domain under the ccTLD structure that had not been
delegated to the owner would not receive my support in any initiative to open
membership to such individuals. It is my personal view that owning domains
where someone else is authoritative (To wit: your parent domain), is gray area
enough for me in the first place under the gTLD's This is based upon my
perception that many of the domains under this category are either a.) vanity
domains purchased by opportunists or others that have no real technical concept
of the ramifications involved in this debate; or b.) domains owned by
disinterested parties by virtue of being uninformed, whose technical aspects
have been left to professionals like myself, to administer for our client
subscriber base.
If on the other hand, someone feels strongly enough about this issue to want to
register some absurd SLD under the gTLD structure, say r2d2c3po.org, for the
sole purpose of having a voice to be heard and feeling duly represented by a
group such as ours - even though they have no technical background whatsoever
in DNS - well, if they really feel that they have to go to all of that trouble
I whole-heartedly would welcome them to join our constituency.
Just my two cents worth, and maybe not very well put, but I certainly don't
want to leave anyone out because of a glitch in the differences in
nomenclature. The perception of the Jurisdiction over this debate may appear to
preside on the continent that I live on, but I really believe that it can only
be pressure from the members of nations other than the United States that will
ultimately be victorious in the persuasion of fairer policy making standards
on our internetwork. Otherwise, it isn't our internetwork after all, it's my
government's.
I also do not believe that IDNO's work will stop there.
I would love to hear the thoughts of the membership on this.
Joop Teernstra wrote:
> I am crossposting this from the ifwp list, where we were discussing ccTLD's
> where individuals are not allowed to register (quite a few) , because it
> has relevance for our membership rules.
> There is an increasing trend of individuals registering under higher level
> domains.(of ISP's)
>
> With the current definition of Domain Name, these should be covered by our
> membership rules, I believe.
>
> >From: Onno Hovers <onno@surfer.xs4all.nl>
> >Subject: [IFWP] re:refreshing contact details
> >
> >In article <19990629093857.ZMPK3789.mta1-rme@[210.55.150.62]> Joop
> Teernstra wrote:
> >> Onno Hovers wrote:
> >>>
> >> The .nl registry is one that needs indeed some checking. I recently
> >> received a net- article which bitterly complained about the total
> >> arbitrariness with which the Dutch registry allows and disallows second
> >> level domain names.
> >
> >Yep, that is another point of contention, the 'we do not give out the good
> >domains' policy of domain-registry.nl. But AFAIK domain-registry.nl intends
> >to change that policy.
> >
> >> But according to the IDNO membership criteria, it will be hard to recruit
> >> members there. No individual domains. Only individuals that own small
> >> companies with DN's could be members.
> >> And individuals who register .com's, which should be many.
> >
> >Individuals who want a SLD either register a with internic, or pay
> >the incorporation fee of the Chamber of Commerce. But that incorporation
> >fee is getting higher, and there are certain tax risks.
> >And many ISPs (like xs4all.nl, demon.nl, cistron.nl) offer third-level
> >domains, which are very popular.
> >
>
> --Joop Teernstra LL.M.-- , bootstrap of
> the Cyberspace Association,
> the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
> http://www.idno.org
> -
> This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
> send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
> majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/
--
,,,
(o o)
|----------------------oOO-(_)-OOo-------------------------|
| Bradley D. Thornton "So foul a sky clears |
| Mgr NetWork Services not without a storm" |
| NOMAD Internetwork - Shakespeare - |
| www.linboard.com |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|-----On the Beaches of Super Sunny Southern California----|
|==========================================================|
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/