DNSO / Fluid Constituencies

["Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com>]

I have read the notes the from the Monterrey meeting as well as the three 
drafts of the DNSO bylaws, and I have a couple of questions/comments on 
things that do not appear to have been addressed. For ease of reading and 
response, I will separate them into different threads.

FLUID CONSTITUENCIES.  

It seems to me that the idea of constituencies is a good one, and the six 
designations (registries / registrars / network ops and service providers 
/ businesses and domain owners / trademark issues / general membership) 
are a reasonable start. 

But rather than embedding this division into the bylaws, wouldn't it be 
better to more clearly define what may characterize a "constituency" 
(common business, common interests, regional interests, etc.) and provide 
a mechanism for new constituencies to form and old, outdated 
constituencies to dissolve? The constituencies could be listed in an 
appendix which could be updated every two years, three years, or five 
years -- whatever makes sense. (Must  balance need for organizational 
stability with ability to adapt to a changing environment.) 

Such a fluid model also would have to account for the NC representatives 
to be redistributed among the new constituencies (to the extent that a 
constituency gets more than one rep).

The divisions crafted by this group may be best for 1999, but who can 
foresee what the future will hold, especially in such a rapidly changing 
area. (In the notes from Day 1, it appears that Michael Schneider raised 
this issue, but it was not clear that it was discussed at any length.)

Bret Fausett


=================================

Bret A. Fausett
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
21 School Street, Third Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108

Telephone: (617) 227-1600
Facsimile: (617) 227-1608
   E-Mail: baf@fausett.com

    http://www.fausett.com

=================================