One more thought as we continue to talk about this idea of a
constituency-based Names Council, and the addition of constituencies
beyond those in current drafts.
While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought to
make sure that we create constituencies that people active in this
process would actually belong to. What I mean to say is that I haven't
seen a whole lot of interest from colleges and universities, free speech
interests, and even a more broadly defined public intererest group in DNS
policy or in the creation of the DNSO.
Which is not to say that we should exclude them from the initial model.
But perhaps it would be better to create groups that embody the interests
that have been active in this process. If we get it wrong, there is a
provision in the draft bylaws for the creation of new constituencies and
the assignment of new seats. And if we've got it wrong, we're going to
hear about it pretty quick.
It might be better to err on the side of too few constituencies than to
create constituencies that no one joins. If we devote our drafting
efforts to creating a mechanism for fluid, changing constituencies, we'll
always have built in protection.
-- Bret
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
