It was "consensualized". From the notes:
Glen: There is no general constraint on DNSO member participation
in multiple constituencies, but constituencies may apply their own
requirements [example: At Large constituency rule mentioned above]
such restrictions must be approved by the DNSO at large (consensus)
> was seen as a means of allowing individuals with more than
> one expertise to participate in the work of various committees so that the
> variety of their expertise would not be constrained and lost.
Nope. That wasn't it at all.
> It was not
> seen as a permission for the same interest to acquire a vote
> disproportionate with their actual size, which is what is being permitted in
> the very specific case of the trademark people.
No, that is not what is being "permitted" for the trademark people,
or anyone else. Membership in multiple constituencies doesn't have
that effect.
In fact, the voting rules are rather subtle, and your fulminating
simplifications really don't do them justice. As currently
constructed, the constituencies nominate their representatives, but
the nominees are voted on by the entire membership. Each member gets
one vote for each constituency. The precise language is:
Each member of the DNSO may cast one vote for one nominee for
membership in the Names Council from each of the constituencies.
In other words, the constituencies nominate, the membership elects.
So if a company is a member of one constituency it still gets to vote
for the nominees frome each of the other constituencies, as well is
its own. BEING A MEMBER OF MULTIPLE CONSTITUENCIES DOES NOT CONFER
ANY ADDITIONAL VOTING RIGHTS, AS FAR AS ELECTING NC MEMBERS.
It does confer the ability to nominate in more than one
constituency, but that is simply not a big deal --
Note that this rule considerably moderates the power of
constituencies to "stack" anything -- the "at large" constituency
will undoubtedly command far more votes than any other constituency,
so in practice, the nominees attractive to the at large will tend to
be elected. Furthermore, the membership of the various
constituencies will not have a uniform point of view -- far from it.
So a dissatisfied member can always nominate someone very popular
with the at large constituency.
[...]
> No one mentioned exclusion until the INTA proposed it in their application.
> That is a fact. You will not change that by your dishonest portrayal of me
> as the excluder. You attack me for proposing the exclusion of the trademark
> lawyers as a constituency, separate from the businesses who pay their wages,
> yet you entertain the proposal of the INTA, which is that the users of the
> Internet be excluded from the DNSO.
The INTA document does not exclude users of the Internet from the
DNSO. The definition of "legitimate interest" is as follows:
Any individual, firm, association or corporation having gross
revenues of or spending at least $xx in connection with
Internet-related activities...
"$xx" could be anywhere from "$10" to "$99", I suppose. That hardly
seems like a significant exclusion -- especially since we were going
to charge dues in that range anyway.
> There is nothing that can politely be
> said of someone who takes this position, Kent, and I am trying to refrain
> from insults and expletives here.
Probably a wise idea...
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain