At 06:27 PM 1/11/99 -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jan 1999, Roeland M.J. Meyer wrote:
>
>> >I haven't heard any real disagreement with simply having "individual" and
>> >"business" membership.
>>
>> Actually, in a loose fashion, you've heard some agreement. It is the ISOC
>> model. I keep trying but the only other breakdown that makes sense to me is
>> users/ISPs. Since there are problems with both of them, a flat model comes
>> to mind.
>
>What exactly is the problem with a bicameral approach?
You mean beyond the obvious one of getting agreement on what the two parts
are comprised of? No problem. However, we've spent years trying to get some
sort of constituency agreement and have gotten nowhere. I don't think we'll
ever get consensus on that front. Anyone touches it and it fragments, or
morphs in uncertain ways, like mercury it puddles (piddles?).
>And the flat model has problems all its' own....
Yes, but they are straight-forward, even if they are difficult. I am more
than willing to be convinced as I'm not thrilled with it myself.
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing...
-- Thomas Jefferson
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
