RE: [dnso.discuss] Re: do we want to have constituency meetings

[erony@marin.k12.ca.us (Ellen Rony)]

Can we assume that everyone on domain-policy@open-rsc.org is also
discuss@dnso.org and avoid the cross posting?  And see comments below.

William Walsh wrote:

>We may have to accept initially define constituencies in a compromise proposal,
>Ellen.  I'd like to hear your opinion of what initial constituencies you think
>would be acceptable and also prevent capture by any one interest?
>
>For example, should we define 4 or 5 very broad constituencies or 12 to 15
>narrowly defined constituencies?

Well, first give me some justification for constituencies.  Almost everyone
on this list would fit into three or four of the constituencies outlined by
DNSO.ORG.

For example, let's say I have a personal website at RONY.COM (we do,
actually).  Ok, that's the non-commercial.  But also a commercial
involvement, since, while I collect no money, I have another website which
links to a site where books can be ordered online.  OK, that's a business
constituency.  But then, say I've got a trademark on the name of my
company, use it at AlexanderWorksOnLine.com.  That's a trademark
constituency.  Ok, which do I choose, or do I get all three constituencies?
What, exactly, is the point of slicing the pie this way?

I do feel that registrars, registries, business, education, non-commercial
and personal interests should all have a place in the DNSO, and the Names
Council would be better served by having people who represent all these
perspectives.  So, from that vantage, I might favor half the NC slots to be
allocated to the three basic and well-differentiated constituencies
(commercial, non-commercial, and infrastructure) and the other half to be
voted on by open membership.

If you are still concerned that this proposal provides opportunity for
capture by special interest, then impose a geographic distribution
(proportional to IP address allocations determined annually) upon the open
membership representation on the Names Council. In other words, the make-up
of the Names Council is treated almost in two parts -- half constituency,
half open+geographic.  No geographic distribution on the constituency
proportion.

Maybe there are problems with this simplistic approach, but I absolutely
disagree with the way DNSO.ORG wants to slice this pie.

IMHO, and since you asked.




Ellen Rony
Co-author
The Domain Name Handbook
http://www.domainhandbook.com
==============================     //
======================================
ISBN 0879305150                *="  ____ /                        +1 (415)
435-5010
erony@marin.k12.ca.us             \     )
Tiburon, CA
                                   //  \\  On the Internet, no one knows
you're a dog

  "Strategic planning is worthless unless there is strategic vision."
(J.Naisbitt)