FLUID CONSTITUENCIES.
It seems to me that the idea of constituencies is a good one, and the six
designations (registries / registrars / network ops and service providers
/ businesses and domain owners / trademark issues / general membership)
are a reasonable start.
But rather than embedding this division into the bylaws, wouldn't it be
better to more clearly define what may characterize a "constituency"
(common business, common interests, regional interests, etc.) and provide
a mechanism for new constituencies to form and old, outdated
constituencies to dissolve? The constituencies could be listed in an
appendix which could be updated every two years, three years, or five
years -- whatever makes sense. (Must balance need for organizational
stability with ability to adapt to a changing environment.)
Such a fluid model also would have to account for the NC representatives
to be redistributed among the new constituencies (to the extent that a
constituency gets more than one rep).
The divisions crafted by this group may be best for 1999, but who can
foresee what the future will hold, especially in such a rapidly changing
area. (In the notes from Day 1, it appears that Michael Schneider raised
this issue, but it was not clear that it was discussed at any length.)
Bret Fausett
=================================
Bret A. Fausett
Fausett, Gaeta & Lund, LLP
21 School Street, Third Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02108
Telephone: (617) 227-1600
Facsimile: (617) 227-1608
E-Mail: baf@fausett.com
=================================