Please check for me to make sure that my 10 constituency proposal
still includes a public interest constituency! I belive it was there
in MTY and in all the versions since, so please check to be sure I
have not somehow removed it with some weird key strokes!
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Thu, 28 Jan 1999 23:13:25 -0500:
}
}At 1/30/99, 06:41 PM, Mikki Barry wrote:
}>At 6:43 PM -0500 1/30/99, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
}>>A balanced, fluid, constituency-based Names Council (along the lines
}>>advocated by CENTRE) simply initiates and then guides this open, public
}>>process. There are very important commercial and consumer interests
}>>though that have made a huge investment in the internet and who want a
}>>guaranteed venue for participation. It is obviously important to include
}>>them in this process. If a seat on the Names Council gives them some
}>>comfort that the process will work better, then I'm certainly not against
}>>it. As long as the policy recommendations come from a larger, open, flat
}>>membership (a la the "General Assembly"), I'm satisfied that the process
}>>will work.
}>
}>And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
}>investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
}>not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
}>
}>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
}>commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
}>communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions, private, and
}>commercial entities hadn't made committments to the medium, there would BE
}>no e-commerce. Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
}>constituencies. There is no provision for public interest, universal
}>access interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
}>several other important constituencies that are left out of every proposal
}>(although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft, although it is
}>being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact it has been brought
}>up time and time again over the years).
}>
}>This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
}
}
}If we ignore the question of membership model,
}and we assume a constituency based Names Council,
}are there any objections to adding a public
}interest constituency?
}
}Jay.
}
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
