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

[John C Klensin <klensin@mci.net>]

Kathy,

It seems to me that there is a key question here:   If one wants
the GA to be an independent body, organized in lieu of a
constituency (or believes that has happened for either the short
term or the longer one), then it is appropriate to go down the
path that I suggested (quick and temporary) or the one you
suggest (clearly longer term in effect).   If one believes that
it should not be such a body, then someone --presumably the NC--
should move to include the unrepresented proto-constituencies.   

Frankly, I would have hoped that the NCDNC, as a logical
possibility, would have done some serious outreach in that area.
The fact that has not happened suggests to me that the
appropriateness of the NCDNC as currently structured as a
constituency may need to be reviewed.

Three other observations:

* The [grassroots] organizations that "work with the sticky,
messy issues of grassroots democracy" rarely have to deal with
the problems encountered when some of the people involved are
fictious.  And many, although certainly not all, of them have
historically been fronts for demagoges who are happy to speak
for whatever numerous, but uninvolved and unconsulted, group
they claim to represent.   History and retrospective have not
been kind to these groups when their claimed scope of coverage
has significantly exceed the size of a large neighborhood or
small village.

* If one could really organize the GA to fairly represent all
groups in the DNSO, then the constituencies would not be needed
at all: the GA could directly elect the Names Council if,
indeed, the Names Council were needed.  I consider that outcome
absurd, but opinions may, of course, differ.

* I don't see the NC "providing leadership to the GA", now or
ever.  I see it providing leadership to the DNSO, and the GA
taking care of itself (or being taken care of) as a side-effect.
And, with regard to "more time", any decision made or action
taken before this mess is straightened out will certainly have
its legitimacy be questioned on the grounds of
representativeness and inclusion.   More time can be wasted
dealing with claims of illegitimacy than addressing them in the
first place.   So, unless you are willing to defer _all_ NC and
DNSO-related actions for as long as it takes, a little more time
may, indeed, be a terrible thing.

And if not now, when?

  --john

-------------------

--On Monday, November 22, 1999 16:40 -0500 KathrynKL@aol.com
wrote:

> John Klensin lists three options for the GA below.  I know he
> has thought  long and hard about this subject, but there is
> also a 4th option:  for groups  that work with individuals to
> assist the GA in providing its own structure  and vision.
> There are grassroots membership organizations that work with
>...