Re: [council] Task Forces and diversity

["Milton Mueller" <Mueller@syr.edu>]

I think Elisabeth has pointed out one of the inherent problems
of using small, highly selective Task Forces rather than
open Working Groups. 

By limiting the number of participants to such a small number,
one raises an issue of representation. If the group consists of
only 10 members, those 10 must somehow represent "the world."

Although that part of her logic is correct, 
I cannot support Elisabeth's proposal. It attempts to make 
groups of 10 or 15 "representative" according to 
geography or national origin. This would 1) dramatically slow
down the process, 2) politicize it, and 3) make membership and
participation contingent upon factors that have nothing to
do with someone's willingness or ability to participate. 

1) Slowness.
If her proposed rule is adopted, no constituency could make a 
decision about who would represent it on a TF - their representative 
would depend on the geographic composition of the members 
selected by every other constituency. So each constituency would have 
to dig up 5 members for every single nomination, one from each region.
Some of those nominations would be made not because the
individual knew anything or was even eager to participate, 
but simply because the constituency needed to fill a 
geographic slot. The final TF would have to be selected 
through a tortuous kind of combinatorial logic. And who
would make these decisions, and on what basis?  Some 
constituencies would not get the representative they really
wanted. That's the worst part of it. They would get the representative 
that filled the "proper" geographic slot. 

2. Politicization.
And why are we privileging geographic origin? It seems to have
no relationship to the actual policy issues we face. YJ Park and
I often vote together on policy issues, but we are in different
regions; Roger Cochetti and I are often in disagreement but 
we are in the same region. The idea of territorial representation
is OK as a very broad, high-level constraint upon Board and
Names Council elections, but when it comes to the specifics
of policy it makes no sense at all.

3. Ability
Anyone involved in a DNSO constituency knows that when
work is conducted by volunteers you go with whoever is willing
and able to do the work. Willingness and ability, not geographic
origins, are the MOST critical factors in this work. Some constituencies
have elected NC members who promptly disappear. What kind
of representation is that? It doesn't matter what country someone
is from if they don't show up. Likewise, one can hardly be 
represented adequately by someone who doesn't know anything
about the topic. I am not suggesting that some regions
know less about issues than others. What I am saying is that if
individuals are chosen for TF work based primarily upon their
geographic origin and not their williness and ability to serve, there
is a greater chance that the person selected will be ineffectual.

Nevertheless, it is true that with small, closed groups we
also increase the chance that some significant part of the
affected community will be excluded from proper representation.
The real solution to this dilemma is to have an open working
group structure, and to learn how to manage the problems
of openness.

--MM