RE: [wg-review] Constituencies

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

That would work too. But, I don't see much effort on figuring out, how to figure out, which new ones to add. Also, no matter which ones we add, someone will ALWAYS be left out.You can just about bank it.

 

There are two ways to approach such a problem;

1) Create a catch-all constituancy (which may just be the GA), or

2) dump them all.

 

Now ask yourself;

which one's less work?

Which has a higher likelyhood of success, in the near term?

what damages are accrued by the status quo?

which is more difficult to subvert?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Dassa [mailto:dassa@dhs.org]
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 11:28 PM
To: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] Constituencies

I saw the objection, didn't notice any rejection of this particular application.   However I would suggest that the solution would be to expand the number of constituencies rather than dismantling the model.

 

Darryl (Dassa) Lynch.

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Roeland Meyer
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2001 9:32 PM
To: review
Subject: [wg-review] Constituencies

I was just over at the NCDNHC list and guiess what? DNRC, a non-profit, just got rejected, because they also support commercial interests.Like MHSC, but for different reason, they don't fit in any other constituency either. Ergo, they are disenfranchised.

 

I can't think of a stronger argument for the abolishment of the constituency model. If we can't include everyone that controls a domain name, it shouldn't exist. A DNSO that doesn't enfranchise ALL domain name holders, is NOT a DNSO!

--
ROELAND M.J. MEYER
Managing Director
Morgan Hill Software Company, Inc.
TEL: +001 925 373 3954
FAX: +001 925 373 9781
http://www.mhsc.com
mailto: rmeyer@mhsc.com