RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 07:46 PM 1/11/01, Eric wrote:
>Kent Wrote:
>That is, the vast representational gap claimed by some is a pure fiction.

Well now.....to quote the White Paper:

"The Board of Directors for the new corporation should be balanced to 
equitably represent the interests of IP number
    registries, domain name registries, domain name registrars, the 
technical community, Internet service providers (ISPs),
    and Internet users (commercial, not-for-profit, and individuals) from 
around the world. Since these constituencies are
    international, we would expect the board of directors to be broadly 
representative of the global Internet community. "

Internet users, Kent - NOT domain name registrants. Internet USERS. 
Individuals described as a CONSTITUENCY. Every other category of entity in 
that paragraph has been recognized, either in an SO or as a constituency. 
The White Paper categorizes individuals with commercial interests and 
non-profit interests as a desirable constituency. And no, I'm NOT confusing 
that with at large.

So, let's remember first that we're discussing a small portion of all 
affected people - those who register domain names.A gap exists, 
nonetheless, and conservatively there are several million people in that gap.

As far as small business and the BC goes, you avoided my deliberate 
referrence to it as "capture". I firmly believe that big business needs a 
place to articulate it's collective concerns, and that small business needs 
the same. That wouldn't be the same place.

>It is true that everybody could fit in to at least one of the 
>constituencies (I think).

No, they can't. And when .name comes online, there will be a whole TLD's 
worth of people who won't fit - an actual class of unrepresented domain 
name holders. Second class netizens.

Unless a personal/individuals constituency is created.

>I wonder if it is possible that only having 7 constituencies is simply too
>few to be effective representation to the internet public as a whole.  Does
>it makes sense to split them down further so people can find a constit. that
>more closely matches their needs?

I keep visualizing some incredibly complex matrix structure where we have a 
US/Business, an Asia/Business, an Asia/Nonprofit, and so forth. If 
participation scales up too big, we may need to. Fortunately, I usually 
wake up before I try to draw the org chart.

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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