> Hmmm. Only economic interests that meet a certain threshold are legitimate.
Yes, I stuck at this point, too (as per previous posted comments). Such
criteria as the above cannot reasonably be applied to the at-large
constituency, at any rate, because they exclude those entities that have
no cash flow, or at least none related to the Internet, for example
free, volunteer community networks.
So long as there is an at-large constitutency where non-economic and
other interests not fitting into the more specifically defined
constitutencies can be included, these economically defined
constitutencies can apply such criteria without excluding entities not
fulfilling them from membership. The at-large constituency is the key to
solving the problem, IMHO.
> I went on to read about 'applying' for membership to the names council, and
> couldn't go much further than that.
>From a previous posting:
...............................................................
> > Section I. Subsection D.
> >
> > I really don't recall that we agreed to let the NC decide who can and
> > can't be a DNSO member. In any case, why should the Names Council, or
> > anyone else, decide this? All there needs to be are criteria for
> > membership, and a secretary or specific membership person who checks to
> > see if applicants comply. Putting it up to the Names Council is like
> > saying they can choose who the members will be. This looks very bad.
> > Also - it's work for them, to no good purpose.
> I think you may be right about this. Suggest some wording.
...............................................................
I'll be posting an alternative wording for consideration this weekend.
> I've never had much interest in country clubs, especially one that doesn't
> have a golf course.
Who said there wouldn't be a golf course? :)