Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
On Wed, Dec 27, 2000 at 11:17:32PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > Constituencies:
> I suggest that all of the questions you ask about constituencies are
> irrelevant until the fundamental question is asked and answered: Should
> the DNSO have a constituency structure?
That question has already been asked and answered through a very long
and ardous process, and the answer is before us: we have constituencies,
and we have them for very good reasons.
It is obvious that there are in fact groups (such as the ccTLDs and the
registrars) that are in a unique relationships with ICANN, relationships
that are not fairly or adequately addressed by a "one person, one vote"
rule. The exact nature of these unique relationships is debatable, but
that they exist is not. These groups demand, and in fact deserve, a
special place at the table.
The current constituencies are there because there were people
who made the case for their existence. They are ad hoc, but that only
reflects an underlying reality: the parties that have an interest in
domain name policy come in ad hoc groupings.
Kent Crispin "Be good, and you will be
email@example.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain