[wg-review] Representative Figures

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

Kent Crispin wrote:
"Consensus-based effort? You can't possibly be
referring to this WG. 
There are fewer active participants on this list
than there are members
to the NC, and the NC members are elected
representatives of sometimes very large
constituencies.  Members of this WG represent only
themselves."

Kent raises an interesting point.  Just how
representative of the ICW are the NC and the
current DNSO?  I have compiled the available
figures below:

Representative numbers: 

ccTLDs: all the ccTLDs=244 
http://www.wwtld.org/elections/rolls/allmembers.txt

bcdnso (Business Constituency): 68 members
http://www.bcdnso.org/Directoryservices.htm

gTLD: 1 member=VeriSign, Inc.
http://www.gtldregistries.org/aboutus.html

Internet Service Providers’& Connectivity
Providers’constituency or ISPCP for short: 38
members
http://www.dnso.org/constituency/ispcp/ISPCP.Members.html

NCDNHC: 63 members
http://www.glocom.ac.jp/users/ajp/ncmem.html

Registrars Constituency: 75 accredited &
functioning registrars, 73 accredited, but not yet
operational, 

Intellectual Property  Constituency: Membership
figures not available.

Without the unverifiable number of IP Constituency
Members, that makes for a total of approximately
562 members (of all consituencies of the DNSO)
being represented on the NC.

The question is:  Is this an adequate figure of
representation to claim anywhere near sufficient
consideration of the interests of the Internet
Community as a whole?

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
	Working Chair, WG Review
--
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