Re: [wg-review] [IDNH]Membership criteria

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sun, 7 Jan 2001 23:18:10 -0500, Joanna Lane wrote:

>I would simply say either
>a)  "IDNH constituency membership is open to any person who is an individual
>domain name holder" or
>b) "IDNH constituency membership is open to any group of individual domain
>name holders"

They are the two basic models.  One could actually have a model which
allows both but that can complicate things.  There are pros and cons
to each model of course.

I have been watching carefully and so far I have not seen a single
person oppose the principle that the DNSO should have an IDNH
constituency.  In fact to my great pleasure several members of the
Names Council have explicitly posted in favour of this.

In terms of our report due 15 January we need to consider whether we
just report consensus on the principle of an IDNH constituency (and
hopefully a recommendation on how to progress it) or if we have time
to debate the merits of the two models above and try and achieve
consensus on the basic model for such a constituency.

DPF

________________________________________________________________________
<david at farrar dot com>
NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
ICQ 29964527
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html