A few thoughts on constituences and memberships. Speaking for myself, I've waffled on the whole constituency thing for a long time. I first thought they'd be a good idea, then I thought that they would not, and now I'm really indifferent. I've realized though that the changes in my thinking have occurred because of the shifts in thinking about how the DNSO would make its policy recommendations. Now that there appears to be consensus (among *all* groups, including AIP, ORSC, CENTRE, dnso.org, INTA, and all of the commentators) that the Names Council should not be able to go into a room, close the door, and emerge with a policy recommendation, I have no strong opinion on whether the Names Council should have constituencies or not. Under the draft that was just circulated, there is a clear mechanism for making policy recommendations (Section 5). This process includes an open, public meeting of the General Assembly, open comment periods on all drafts, and fair hearings and reviews for persons and companies that believe the policy process is headed in the wrong direction. I think this guarantees everyone who has an interest in DNS policy the opportunity to impact its development. 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. This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort (and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process. That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise. -- 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____________________________________________
