Re: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review,The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.

[Eric Dierker <ERIC@HI-TEK.COM>]

I do not believe that is what follows.  There is no requirement for the
disassembling of the existing constituencies.  A term often used is grand
fathering.  But I do see great potential for the establishment of a supporting
constituency of the users/individuals of domains within ccTLDs, just as we are
recommending a IDNH/O constituency. Of course this may dilute the power base of
the current ccTLD constituency.

Sincerely,

Peter de Blanc wrote:

> Darryl:
>
> The ccTLD Constituency, of which I am a member, consists of the managers of
> 244 ccTLDs.
>
> That is all there is.
>
> I can not support your position because my constituency would be dis-allowed
> under your rule #1, below.
>
> Peter de Blanc
> AdCom
> ccTLD constituency
> Manager, .VI
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Dassa
> Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2001 6:57 AM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO
> Constituencies. - Dassa.
>
> Submission One for WG-Review, The DNSO Constituencies
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Darryl (Dassa) Lynch January 2001.
>
> Preamble
> --------
> The current constituency structure within the DNSO if very rigid and from
> all appearances, not truly representative.  There  is continued
> dissatisfaction within the Internet community for, and a lack of
> understanding of, the DNSO.  The following  submission deals with some
> specific aspects of the constituency structure but is not purported to be a
> complete solution,  only the basis for a possible start in the right
> directions.
>
> Possible Structure
> ------------------
> It is noted the current constituencies within the DNSO have low member
> numbers.  As such, the writer does not see them as  being representative.
> This is one of the first constituency issue that needs to be addressed.  Nor
> are all possible groups  accounted for with the current constituency
> structure.  There would appear to be some artificial barriers in place to
> limit  true representation.
>
> I propose a reform of the current constituency model to the following:
>
> 1.0 The DNSO set a mimimum membership level for any constituency at 500
> members.
>
> (snipped)
>
> --
> 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