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

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

Ken,

--On Monday, November 22, 1999 17:52 -0500 Ken Stubbs
<kstubbs@dninet.net> wrote:

> the same points also make for logical reason as to why it may
> very well be quite difficult to effect the at-large
> directorship elections. it is very hard  to get a good handle
> on exactly whom the at-large constituancy may constitute.
>...
> as katheryn states at her closing "A little more time is not a
> terrible thing". This advice may very well ring true with
> respect to the at-large directorships as well.

I completely agree, but see at least one important distinction:
The DNSO model, for better or worse, is that all legitimate
interests get represented by the various constituencies and the
GA is not a separate body with its own set of interests.  If
that model is workable, then the focus ought to be on
identifying the disenfranchised elements who now appear only in
the GA and getting them into constituencies that represent them.
That isn't easy, but is, at least in principle, a great deal
easier than turning the GA into a representative body.

By contrast, the at-large elections (not a constituency as I
understand the term) is, indeed, a really hard problem.  It is
clearly one to which Kathy's notions of grass roots
organizations/ organizing should be addressed (although my
misgivings about that are probably obvious from my previous
note).  But I don't think there is any other way that is really
practical and representative: e.g., the notion of
disenfranchising everyone who doesn't belong to an organization
of adequate size will, I suspect, produce as much outcry as we
are seeing in the GA, but with far more appropriateness.

    john