Re: [wg-review] Karl's assigned objective.

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 05:29 PM 1/8/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>It is utter nonsense to think that only domain name registrants should
>be allowed to be members of *any* constituency.

As though one could be a registrar, registry, or isp without being a 
registrant? Seems to me that the nature of some of the constituencies 
requires it. That's apart from NCDNHC, which has "domain holder" embedded 
in it's name. So that would be what, 5 of the existing 7 that actually 
require it either by virtue of their inherent nature, or by their 
definition. Then the BC accepts organizations without requiring them to be 
registrants, but not individual businesses. So the only existing 
constituency without that requirement is IP, which has a host of other 
requirements (or criteria to be evaluated) instead.

I'm not arguing "should" or "should not", just pointing out that the 
existing constituencies mostly do make that requirement one way or the other.

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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