[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Constituencies

On Thu, Nov 26, 1998 at 09:47:17PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> Dear DNSO participants,
> 
> How do the attendees break themselves out by constituency?
> Registry: 18
> Registrars: 3
> ISP and infrastructures: 7
> Businesses: 1
> TM: 2
> At large: 3
> (from the Monterrey meeting notes) 
> 
> If businesses equate with the Domain Name Owners, we must all agree that
> they were pretty badly underrepresented in the meeting. 

Actually, business+TM+at_large represent domain name owners.  The at 
large constituency should probably be thought of as the "individual 
domain name holder" constituency, since it has the lowest membership 
requirements. 

> Yet, the two most permanent constituencies are  the registry industry as a
> whole vs. the people who will have to fork out the yearly fees.
> These are not fluid like the others, but , until rights are recognised,
> oppositions of interest. 
> Even the TM lobby is more fluid in comparison.

I have no idea what you mean by fluid.  The registry constituency 
has a very precise definition -- all the rest of the contituencies 
are rather loosely defined, and, in fact, every one of them includes 
"domain name owners".

> But no seats are reserved for the absent constituency: the people who will
> have to pay for their Domain Name "licences" and ultimately finance this
> representation feast.

The At Large is intended to represent individuals domain holders.

To review, this is the current representation scheme:

registries:6
registrars:3
ISPs:3
Business&organizations:3
TM:3
At-large:3

I think it is clear to everybody but the registries that the 
registries are over-represented.  


-- 
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