KASWESHA APPLICATION

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 01:14:35PM -0800, Dan Krimm (dan at MUSICUNBOUND.COM) wrote:

> As long as any sub-domain (or sub-sub-sub-domain) counts as a "domain"
> that seems to fly.  OTOH, if only first-level 2LDs count, then this might
> not qualify (though perhaps kbo.co.ke might?).

Without arguing about the charter wording, my understanding when I joined
was that this group would be for domain registrants, those who have
at least one domain registered directly to them.

Whether that implies 2nd level domain or not would depend on the
policies of the TLD: in some cases 3rd level domains can be
registered directly, e.g., .co.uk or anything under .name
and apparently .co.ke, and I see no reason to exclude those.

But where an individual ISP offers subdomains to its customers,
the situation is different, especially considering companies
offering subdomains for free and more or less automatically.
Should we accept anyone who has a .dyndns.org subdomain, for example?
It would change the demographics of potential members and
their common interests rather radically.

As for commercial domains: the domain name doesn't really tell
who is in fact commercial and who isn't. Lots of private
individuals and non-commercial organizations use .com,
for example.

> If the web site were located at kbo.co.ke/kaswesha/ then qualification
> might seem to be on shakier ground.  Is this minor technical distinction
> really that important?

I don't see it as particularly significant - and that is exactly why
I consider kaswesha.kbo.co.ke application shaky.
But I appreciate that it other views might be possible,
I'm open to persuasion here.

> Does kaswesha.kbo.co.ke get listed in WHOIS, or only kbo.co.ke?

Only the latter, apparently:

$ whois kaswesha.kbc.co.ke
[...]
Query: kaswesha.kbc.co.ke
Status: This WHOIS server does not have any records for that zone.

Having whois listing as a criteria might actually work,
it would match my understanding of the intent of the charter
fairly well.

But: the charter wording "domain for exclusive use" is unclear.
It has to be clarified - if not by actually changing the charter,
by an interpretation decision. Which it seems we are in the
process of doing right now.

My present inclination would be to interpret "domain"
as something registered directly from TLD registrar and
"exclusive use" as right of use granted by a registrar -
but not so much on the basis of the wording but on how
I've understood the purpose of the group.
And that would mean rejecting Kaswesha, unless and
until the get a "real" domain of their own.

--
Tapani Tarvainen