Re: [ga] DNSO Constituency Structure

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

Hi Roeland

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 09:14:22 -0800, Roeland Meyer wrote:

> The entire concept of separating supply and demand is bogus, IMHO.
> There is no instance of a pure supplier or a pure consumer, as organized
> entities.  This is also true of ISPs, every ISP has an ISP. There are
> upstreams, downstreams, and peers. Other than the leaves, everyone else
> falls into this and even the leaves can have off-topology downstreams and
> peers.  We may look at this as a hierarchy and we may sing the hierarchy
> mantra, but it is really a network of networks and until we start looking
> at it that way we will continue to FUBAR. Networks are not hierarchies.

That's not really the point, Roeland.  I'm simply saying that the present
constituency structure sucks.  You experience in not getting a spot for
MHSC should confirm that.  So I was trying to analyse the situation in
sensible terms.  Perhaps we should take it one step at a time from the top.

At present there are three Supporting Organisations:

1. The Address Supporting Organization (ASO)
2. The Domain Name Supporting Organization (DNSO)
3. The Protocol Supporting Organization (PSO)

Starting with a clean slate, do you think that is the ideal structure?

Best regards
Patrick Corliss


--
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