RE: Draft New Draft

["John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>]

William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 09-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> >  The set of constituencies named are explicitly an initial set of
> >  constituencies, and other constituencies can be added.  There is a
> >  more general constituency (the "non-commercial" constituency) that
> >  is a natural home for public interest organizations.  However, it
> >  might be a perfectly reasonable thing to create a public interest
> >  constituency in its own right -- I have no problem with that.
>
> But of course, they must select between the "At Large" and the defined
> constituency.  Meaning they can belong to one, but not both.

The At Large constituency from the Barcelona/Monterrey draft got deleted in
the Washington draft (and with it the ability of individuals to join).  The
Non-Commercial constituency is not the same as At Large, and carries with it
no special rules WRT membership in other constituencies.  If there were a
Public Benefit constituency, public interest groups could indeed join both
it and the Non-Commercial one.