RE: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.

["Dassa" <dassa@dhs.org>]

|>-----Original Message-----
|>From:On Behalf Of Eric Dierker
|>Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2001 5:59 AM
|>Subject: Re: [wg-review] Submission One for Wg-Review, The DNSO Constituencies. - Dassa.
|>
|>
|>I do not believe that is what follows.  There is no 
|>requirement for the disassembling of the existing constituencies.  A term often 
|>used is grand fathering.  But I do see great potential for the 
|>establishment of a supporting constituency of the users/individuals of domains within 
|>ccTLDs, just as we are recommending a IDNH/O constituency. Of course this may dilute 
|>the power base of the current ccTLD constituency.

True, I did not address the current existing Constituencies.  Personally I would like to see them remain with the provision they would have twelve months to reach the required numbers.  But as I have previously stated, the numbers used are not firm, they are included for the purpose of reaching agreement through discussion.  It is not my intention to promote a decrease in the number of Constituencies.  Rather, I wish to see a large number of them introduced.  Personally I would like to see an IDNH/O and other Constituencies for such groups as Network Managers, Web Masters, ccTLD Users, Specific Language Groups etc etc.  I would like to see much higher participation rates.

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

--
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