[wg-review] At large vs IDNHC

[DPF <david@farrar.com>]

On Sat, 13 Jan 2001 13:19:57 +0100, Jefsey Morfin wrote:

>Greg and all,
>I am to remind you that the individual constituency does exist and is 
>represented by 9 Directors and has a budget through the DNs. 

There is an at large membership which gets to elect five Directors.
Four were effectively self appointed and do not represent anyone.

However the at large membership is not a constituency.  It has no
methods by which to communicate with each other, it is not consulted
on specific issues - all it does is elect five Board Members.

Now while this is very important it is not the same as being
represented in the DNSO as a constituency where in theory DNS policy
is meant to originate from.

>That reducing 
>it to a representation of 3/8 of a Director plus additionnal charges may be 
>considered, by some, as a huge progress worth the innumerable number of 
>exachanged mails here goes far beyond my low IQ understanding. If some of 
>the IDNO/HC activists could explain me the rational of it I will be very 

I believe it is entirely reasonable to want both an at large
membership which elects 9 of the 19 Board places and an IDNHC
constituency within the DNSO.

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