Re: DNSO / Fluid Constituencies

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Nov 24, 1998 at 11:19:40AM -0500, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
> 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 a mechanism for new constituencies to form and old, outdated 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.) 

Just a reminder: what we are preparing is an application, not 
bylaws.  With that caveat in mind, it would seem reasonable to me 
that language be added to the application to the effect that the 
constituencies listed are an initial set, that they could change, 
and that there needs to be the mechanisms you describe for managing 
the life cycle of a constituency.  With that in mind, how about 
drafting an appendix "C" describing mechanisms for creating and 
deleting constituencies, and floating it to the list for 
consideration? 


> 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.)

It wasn't; it's something that should be addressed.

kent

-- 
Kent Crispin, PAB Chair			"No reason to get excited",
kent@songbird.com			the thief he kindly spoke...
PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html