Re: [wg-review] Call for DNSO public comments on the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Excerpt from the DNSO Review Task Force Report v2:

<snip>
>C.  Individual Domain Name Holders Constituency

Discussions within the General Assembly, the Working Group,  and other forums on the question of a constituency 
for individual domain name holders reflect that while not all agree with the need for it, there is sufficient support to 
explore its establishment.    If the constituency is added, a procedure is needed to ensure that it occurs in a 
transparent manner, is representative of its charter, and that the role of the General Assembly, Non-Commercial 
Constituency, and the At Large members is looked at in relation to the individual constituency. If established, it 
should be carefully distinguished from the non-commercial, which should represent non-commercial interests, such 
as educational institutions, libraries, non-profits etc. per its mandate.
<snip>

QUESTION:

What/where is the warrant from WG which supports the last clause in this statement: "If the constituency is added, 
a procedure is needed to ensure that it occurs in a transparent manner, is representative of its charter, and that the 
role of the General Assembly, Non-Commercial Constituency, and the At Large members is looked at in relation to 
the individual constituency. "  

In other words...what is the warrant for mention of the @Large with relation to the IDNH?  Who is correlating the 
two? and why?  I wonder if those who brought up such a relation could be identified?

I am beginning to doubt that anybody will provide a clear answer to this question, but I'm prepared to rationally 
evaluate whatever explanation is offered. 


 







Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc. 


--
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