Re: [wg-review] Bill of Particulars

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

Here is a very narrow slice of what could become a broad bill of particulars: a brief list of problems we face in the non-commercial constituency:

1. Too much heterogeneity of organizations. We include everything from major universities to peace and environmental and civil liberties groups, to non-profit associations of TLD operations, ISOC chapters, professional societies, SDNP programs of the United Nations, etc. Try coming up with policy positions that adequately serve all those interests and viewpoints. The whole concept of a noncommercial constituency was an afterthought, an incoherent category.

2. Unfair expectations relative to other constituencies. Registrars and registries take in, collectively, a couple of billion dollars a year in domain-name related revenue. ISPs, millions. IP and B&C are composed of professional lobbying organizations with warchests in the hundreds of thousands if not millions. 

And yet, the non-commercials, this heterogeneous group noted above, all of which makes NO revenue from domain names, is told, "you must pay the same amount of money as other constituencies to support the DNSO, and if you don't we'll unseat you."




>>> "Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org> 01/02/01 07:23PM >>>
If we were to begin to list the problem areas with the DNSO structure (as
Milton has wisely suggested), what would that list look like? Should we see
if we can agree on some particulars?

Bill of Particulars:

1. Unrepresented constituents
 2. Unrepresentative constituencies
 3.

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html 


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html