-----Original Message----- From: Roberto Gaetano <Roberto.Gaetano at etsi.fr> To: 'open-process at star-nets.com' <open-process at star-nets.com> Date: Monday, September 14, 1998 10:04 AM Subject: RE: membership of the new corporation
Comments on:
follow.
Membership Groups I have some problems with the way the Membership Classes (or Groups) are defined.
If you look at the U.S. Congressional model, there is a Senate and House. The Senate is derived "top-down" and the House is grass-roots or "bottom-up". You might want to look at the Root Name Server Cluster (RSC) owner/operators as similar to the Senate. The TLD owner/operators could are similar to the House. [As an aside, I think I reversed these last time, sorry.] The RSCs have a lot of power but that is balanced by the collective will of the TLDs. In both cases, almost anyone can get involved in either group by providing real infrastructure. In my opinion, it is best to design the various round table structures so that they are independent of various companies and organizations such as ISOC, CORE, ITU, etc. I think that we are better off documenting the major RSCs and the major TLDs. The RSCs can collectively come up with a decision and so can the TLDs. Only major decisions should require these two groups to collaborate and hammer out a decision. Of course, some people will be part of both groups. I suppose that is like saying that each Senator also has a Representative by virtue of the fact that they are a human and live somewhere. In order to not get too focused on a U.S.-centric system, other than for examples, it might be easier to use top-down and botto-up to characterize the two camps that seem to form in these debates and need a place to meet in the "middle". Jim Fleming Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm -------- Logged at Tue Sep 15 16:41:16 MET DST 1998 ---------