> FWIW I agree with Mike in that I thought that it was generally agreed
> (although not put to a formal vote)

To my recollection, -nothing- was put to a formal vote at
the meeting.



> However I don't agree with his assessment of Peter's motives, I think it's
> just an oversight on his part.

This "oversight" was already brought to his attention before the
minutes were published.


> BTW - As far as I'm concerned the new category is for charities like
> Barnardos, Freedom from hunger, etc rather than just non-profit
> organisations like ADNA for example. Is this what you are talking about
> Mike? I imagine defining the distinction between the two will be non-trivial.

All the other categories are arranged with reference to the
domain names.  For instance, the "educational sector" is
defined in Peter's minutes as:

	The educational sector would include edu.au and any
	additional 2LDs to serve the needs of this sector, which
	includes the primary, secondary and tertiary educational
	sectors in Australia.

So, likewise, the non profit sector should include those
organisations that are elegible for inclusion in ASN.AU
and ORG.AU.  This does include charities, trade unions,
incorporated associations, societies and industry boards
and institutions created by act of parliament.

Some of these represent for profit interests, but that's
irrelevant.  Private schools and universities are businesses,
and several government offices are obliged to operate as
for profit businesses (eg: marketing boards).  Yes, there
is overlap.  That's perfectly normal and acceptable.  The
issue is that the non profit sector has always been
recognised as a distinct sector by the DNS and economic
babblings to the contrary, it will continue to be so.

MM