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

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Greg and all,
I am to remind you that the individual constituency does exist and is 
represented by 9 Directors and has a budget through the DNs. That reducing 
it to a representation of 3/8 of a Director plus additionnal charges may be 
considered, by some, as a huge progress worth the innumerable number of 
exachanged mails here goes far beyond my low IQ understanding. If some of 
the IDNO/HC activists could explain me the rational of it I will be very 
thankfull.
Jefsey



On 04:30 12/01/01, Greg Burton said:
>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

--
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