RE: Draft New Draft

["John B. Reynolds" <john@reynolds.chicago.il.us>]

William X. Walsh wrote:
>
> On 10-Feb-99 John B. Reynolds wrote:
> >
> >  William X. Walsh wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09-Feb-99 Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > >  The set of constituencies named are explicitly an initial set of
> > > >  constituencies, and other constituencies can be added.  There is a
> > > >  more general constituency (the "non-commercial" constituency) that
> > > >  is a natural home for public interest organizations.  However, it
> > > >  might be a perfectly reasonable thing to create a public interest
> > > >  constituency in its own right -- I have no problem with that.
> > >
> > > But of course, they must select between the "At Large" and the defined
> > > constituency.  Meaning they can belong to one, but not both.
> >
> >  The At Large constituency from the Barcelona/Monterrey draft
> got deleted in
> >  the Washington draft (and with it the ability of individuals
> to join).  The
> >  Non-Commercial constituency is not the same as At Large, and
> carries with it
> >  no special rules WRT membership in other constituencies.  If
> there were a
> >  Public Benefit constituency, public interest groups could
> indeed join both
> >  it and the Non-Commercial one.
>
> But individual domain name owners can't.  They still must belong to one.
>
> This is one of the best arguments I have seen for a flat membership model.
>

Actually, they can't belong to *any*.  There is no provision for individual
domain holders to join under the Washington draft.  That is my biggest
problem with it.