<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I see a rule in the charter that an organisation should be the exclusive user of at least one domain name. I see no restriction that this domain name be non-commercial. The domain name <a href="http://www.kaswesha.kbo.co.ke/">http://www.kaswesha.kbo.co.ke/</a> clearly resolves to ' a website controlled by and representing the Member Organization', thus satisfying requirement 2.2.1.2.2 of the charter. <div><br></div><div>So the problem McTim is worrying about here appears to be due to a misapprehension. The Kaswesha domain name looks to satisfy the membership requirement to me.</div><div><br></div><div>I thank Milton for his explanation of the reason for the domain name application, and its origins in the deep differences between the GNSO and ALAC mission. </div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div><div><br></div><div>David<br><div><br><div><div>On 17/11/2011, at 7:54 PM, McTim wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 11/17/11, William Drake <<a href="mailto:william.drake@uzh.ch">william.drake@uzh.ch</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">How to reconcile these two statements is a conundrum….<br></blockquote><br>Indeed.<br><br>On the specifics of this application, while I am sure that KASWESHA is<br>a non-commercial organisation, the fact that they have a .co.ke might<br>be disqualifying. I think this is unfair.<br><br>The domain kbo.co.ke is a multistakeholder PPP with the GoKenya,<br>Google, KENIC and others coming together to make it easy to get "kenya<br>Buisnesses Online", hence kbo.co.ke.<br><br>It's a free service, so fairly popular.<br><br>How does the NCSG-EC reconcile inclusion with rigid rules?<br><br>-- <br>Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A<br>route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel<br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></body></html>