Beau, I've not paid attention to this particular constituency (or stakeholder group) application, though I paid very close attention to the earlier application for urban areas. It seems pretty clear from the language that the drafters of the proposal don't view stub resolvers as "consumers", though this is pretty much the view of the DNS technical community, that browsers and mailers and anything else that uses the DNS invokes a stub resolver to start the name to resource resolution sequence of query and response exchanges between an edge device and some recursive or non-recursive server somewhere else. If the BC is the entity which advocates for the self-interest of on-line vendors-for-cash of goods and services, then is the CC the proposed entity for the self-interest of the counter-parties of those on-line vendors-for-cash of goods and services, whether they are called "customers" or "purchasers" or "consumers" or ... Would it be fair to characterize this application as being made by parties to monitized transactions, also known as retail on-line sales? Do they care how their non-transactional email works? What about whether wikipedia resolves correctly? Are they vegetarians or do they just eat yams? Eric