Re: FW: [council] [ga] GA representation on the Names Council

[John C Klensin <klensin@MCI.NET>]

Dennis,

As you have presumably noticed from my responses to Joe, we are
all in agreement that it is a bad idea.    The question is, I
think, only whether it is better or worse than the alternatives.

As long as there are legitimate groups of people in the DNSO who
are not represented in any constituency, the GA becomes their
only voice and, as such, a separate body.    The fix for this is
for the NC to exert, as Joe suggested, some serious leadership.
You either need to figure out a way to enfranchise those folks,
or to formally disenfranchise the balance of them (e.g., with a
strong "nutcases aren't entitled to representation" rule that
with which you can clearly and fairly identify that group and
isolate them), or the claims of non-representation and NC
arrogance are just not going to go away.  And, worse, there will
be enough truth behind them to create period political stirrings.

So, again, the question isn't whether or not that
"randomly-chosen representation" model is a good idea.   It is
which of the following three ideas you prefer:

* Randomly-chosen representation
* Representation chosen by the GA.  This really entrenches them
as a separate body and probably guarantees selection by the
crazies.
* Some rapid, decisive, and balanced action from the NC to
reduce or eliminate the underlying problem.

My strong preference is for the third.  But I'm not on the NC.
It seems to me that the NC needs to figure out a way to work
together to produce and implement a real plan.  And, if it
can't, it needs to either figure out a short-term alternative or
to accept the possibility of one happening to / in spite of it.

    john




--On Sunday, November 21, 1999 16:56 +0000 Dennis Jennings
<Dennis.Jennings@ucd.ie> wrote:

> Colleagues,
> 
> Having reflected on this - I think it is a bad idea.
> 
> I agree with Joe Sims that the GA problems need to be
> addressed in other ways,  and that to follow this suggestion
> would create additional problems and would  confirm the
> (mistaken) idea that the GA is a body that should be
> represented  separately in various fora.
> 
> Dennis