RE: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual Property Constituency

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|> -----Original Message-----
|> From: owner-ga-review@dnso.org On Behalf Of NameCritic
|> Sent: Saturday, June 09, 2001 8:15 AM
|> To: Danny Younger
|> Cc: ga-review@dnso.org
|> Subject: Re: [ga-review] Proposal to Merge the Business and Intellectual
|> Property Constituency
|>
|>
|> It always should have only been one. Having two was just a power move
and
|> should not have been allowed. It is like having a Domain name Owners
|> Constituency AND A Website Owner's Constituency.

I see a number of ways to look at this and a number of purposes for looking
closely at the relationships between Constituencies.

Can we define specifically why we would investigate the relationship
between the two Constituencies.  Is the desired outcome to force a
rationalisation of them and have them combined if there is found to be no
major differences?  Or is it going to be used as a rational in arguments
for the inclusion and formation of more Constituencies.

To use the example above, I can see some benefits in having a Domain Name
Holders Constituency AND a Web Developers/Owners Constituency.  They are
often not the same people.  For instance there are a large number of
websites residing in ISP address space and in user directories where the
web developer/owner has no control over the domain name.  At present they
can only be capsulated into the AtLarge.

We can look at this issue and attempt to force two outcomes, the limiting
of the Constituency numbers or the expansion in the number of
Constituencies.

Personally, I would like to know what the outcome desired will be before I
enter into this discussion in any depth.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

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