RE: [ga] Evolution - GA

[Joanna Lane <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Why would identity verification problems be any different for this proposed
new all encompassing DNSO constituency? Or has the basis for the ALSC
recommendation to deny all but domain name registrants from membership of
the At Large suddenly evaporated for some reason I am missing?

Regards,
Joanna
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent
Crispin
Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2002 2:29 PM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [ga] Evolution - GA


On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 02:28:53PM +0000, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
[...]

>So, while we agree on the assumptions, IMHO these assumptions lead to one
of
> the two solutions:
> 1. dynamically correct the constituency structure with a mechanism to
> add/delete/modify the number of constituencies when needed (remember the
> "Paris Draft"?)
>2. get rid altogether of the constituency structure and replace it with a
GA
> type structure (Karl Auerbach's solution, identifiable to a certain extent
> with the BWG draft).

There is a third solution: create a constituency with the characteristic
that it has completely open individual membership -- any natural person,
with no restrictions to domain name registrants or anything else.  Such
a constituency has the property of providing "representational
closure", and removes, therefore, any requirement of creating more
constituencies.

Kent
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html