Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC, keepconstituencies

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Peter,
please let clarify this confusion with @large. DNSO is an SO, ie a 
consultant to the NoD in term of domain names.

On 06:43 04/01/01, DPF said:
> >In legislative fora, the senators/representatives/whatever propose policy
> >and laws based on what their supporting constituents want.
>
>There is a major difference here with DNSO though.

When you go and see your doctor so you want him to take care of your 
problem or to represent the pseudo-health care policy proposed and voted by 
the few constituencies which count in your city:
- the local police
- the college and univeristy
- the import expot
- the lawyers
- the car drivers
- the hospital staff
- the chamber of commerce
And will you really care about knowing if the pills have been prescribed 
with by the Health Council where hte car driver represent or not the 
firemen and of the local police got 2 or 3 seats.....

To the countrary your preoccupation would be enterily good if you were the 
hospital director and had to plant some trees iatthe hospital gate.

I hope this example helps showing the difference between an SO and @large. 
And why Dennis Jenning's DNSO scheme was so poor. What you discuss here is 
@large, not DNSO.

The entire objective of this WG is to split DNSO from @large. You must have 
consensus in he DNSO, at @large you will only have compromises. Because SO 
are technical general interest oriented and @large is stakeholder interest 
oriented.

Jefsey





--
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