Here's a perfect example of tautology "In
other words, it is difficult to assume that the many commenters who answered
(in effect) that registrations used to engage in “commercial activities” or to
carry out “online financial transactions” should continue to be allowed to use
P/P services would necessarily have answered the question the same way with
regard to all conceivable definitions of these terms."
Say it ain't so! So let me get this straight. We think commenters in this context don't know what they mean by 'commercial activities' simply because one or other of us might not share their definition of what constitutes a 'commercial activity'? As to the WG discussions, what I recall is an explicit rejection of restrictions based on someone's estimation of the meaning of 'commercial activity' because it was considered a sliding scale which would be difficult to locate without inherent discrimination of minority groups.
The At-Large position is that we should not restrict usage of the p/p service so long as the policing of the terms of service - and especially how violations are handled - apply across the board and equally to all.
I object on principle to all attempts at a priori discrimination and via definition. In my part of the world, we are always wary of definitional-based restrictions because some fellow will always say its benign until such time.
We always keep top of mind the question 'when is a human being not a human being'? And we remember the answer by supposedly reasonable men: 'when they're only 2/3rd of a human being'!
-Carlton Samuels