RE: Draft New Draft

["William X. Walsh" <william@dso.net>]

On 10-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
>  
>  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.

But individual domain name owners can't.  They still must belong to one.

This is one of the best arguments I have seen for a flat membership model.


----------------------------------
E-Mail: William X. Walsh <william@dso.net>
Date: 09-Feb-99
Time: 16:57:23
----------------------------------
"We may well be on our way to a society overrun by hordes
of lawyers, hungry as locusts." 
- Chief Justice Warren Burger, US Supreme Court, 1977