Ellen's arguments here are quite good and indeed valid.
A such, and has
been pointed out countless times, defining Constituencies as part of
a structure of any Draft DNSO proposed bylaws is divisive at best, and
only leads to one group being disenfranchised to some extent. Hence
a FLAT membership is the only open, transparent, and accountable
"General Assembly" or what have you, membership structure that
will provide for prevention of capture or disproportionate representation.
Ellen Rony wrote:
Well, since you asked, my short answer is NO.Regards,
Kilnam Chon wrote:
> our question/suggestion is "do we want to hold preliminary DNSO constituency
> meetings on 1999.3.4?" if we do, then some constituencies would meet in the
> morning or afternoon in parallel on 1999.3.4. For example,
> Morning Afternoon
> ISP & Connectivity Business
> Registry Registrar
> Trademark Non-commercial
This idea smacks of hubris -- deja vu all over again for those who watched
the IAHC/CORE/PAC/PAB debacle.
ICANN has NOT annointed any DNSO, and the TWO proposals submitted on
February4 and 5 differ on the issue of constituencies.
Unless you are wedded to a zero-sum game, the prudent course would be to
use the Singapore time to discuss the constituency issue among proponents
of BOTH proposals. Frankly, I think you have to figure out how you
identify and validate DNSO membership before you decide how or whether to
splinter it up into constituencies.
And by the way, let me say AGAIN that
* trademark and business are both commercial constituencies
* registry, registrar and ISP/Connectivity are all infrastructure
The DNSO.ORG proposal groups non-commercial uses of the Internet
(education, public advocacy, religious, personal, non profit) into ONE
constituency with 3
members on the names Council. 5/6 of the representation (15 members of the
Names Council) are allotted to operators with a commercial agenda (if
registries and registrars are for profit)
If there's a separate constituency for trademark owners (which I don't
think should occur) then there must be a separate constituency for
And if registries, registrars and ISPs are each given individual
constituencies, then non-profit organizations, educational institutions,
public advocacy groups, the religious sector, and personal users would all,
likewise, be different constituencies. And none of this constituency-based
approach reflects real percentage use use of the Internet.
My point is that this pie has many ways to slice it, which is where I see
some intractible differences. Before you slice the pie, you have to have
everyone come to the table.
Ellen Rony Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook http://www.domainhandbook.com
================================ // ===================================
ISBN 0879305150 *=" ____ / +1 (415) 435-5010
email@example.com \ ) Tiburon, CA
// \\ "Carpe canine"
You are subscribed to dnso.discuss as: [firstname.lastname@example.org]
To unsubscribe, change your list options, or view archives go to:
This list system donated by Lyris Technologies (http://www.lyris.com/).
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208