At 04:01 AM 3/21/2007, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
Nick Ashton-Hart wrote: As to you second very good point, the larger context is important as you say - however, the larger context is a shifting sand with the advent of the ALAC review. Addressing the functions and and positions of the two constituencies is important, but is an entirely separate issue from deciding on written criteria for evaluating membership applications for THIS constituency, since, again, organisations are free to join both.
Already with the GNSO review we need to tackle this item, as the LSE has identified the need for a different constituency structure for the GNSO. Regardless on whether this is going to happen or not, the discussion will have to address this.
I sincerely hope it does happen. As my personal view, I would like to see the LSE report adopted quickly and in full. Like everyone, I disagree with parts of its recommendations, but think that on a whole, its proposed simplified structure would do a far better job of representing individual Internet users and other concerned parties than the current baroque and voteless structure does. Thanks, --Wendy -- Wendy Seltzer -- wendy@seltzer.org Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School Fellow, Berkman Center for Internet & Society http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/seltzer.html http://www.chillingeffects.org/