Re: [discuss] Unofficial minutes June 11 1999 Names Council Meeting

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

that you have the time and energy to respond to the provocation is
admirable.  thanks.  [ and yes, i think 'provocation' is a kind phrasing
when a lawyer suggests going against the stated will of the board ]

> In fact, it will be years before we even are sure who all the
> stakeholders are, if ever.  What do we do in the meantime?  Rhetorical
> question -- sorry.  What we do in the meantime, in the net tradition,
> is that we get something going with what we have, and reine as we go.

this is a part which worries me greatly.  not that i disagree, but rather
would like to explore one aspect of this point a bit further, what i
think of as the anti-hubris issue.  e.g.

    the speed at which various parties arrive at the table is directly
    propotional to the size of the player, the depth of their pockets,
    and their vested interest.  this should not be surprising nor is it
    evil, just life in the big city.

    hence individuals, non-profits, social agencies, parties from less
    aggressive cultures, etc. will come late to the table.

    because of the above, and that the internet governance process and
    particularly the icann process is rather hurried for a global social
    and legal process (yes, that is a separate but valid issue, but this
    is not the appropriate forum), in the near term the interests of the
    late-comers will tend to be represented by proxies (that is we
    chickens).

    because representation of the non-present, as well intentioned as is
    may be, is risky at best and is very liable to misrepresentation and
    conflict of interest, extreme care must be taken in any interim
    representation of late-arriving constituencies.

i suspect that the above can be generally agreed.  the following is
likely more contentious, but i think worth discussing:

    to minimize the bad effects of the above issues, representation in
    constituencies such as the ncdnso should be as open as possible.  but
    those who are proposed for seats on the bodies such as the names
    council should not have serious conflicts of interest.

    this is not be meant to exclude parties from the constituency, but
    rather to prevent parties, no matter how well-intentioned, from
    *formally* representing small players while also having hats of other
    major interests or players.

constructive criticism welcomed, heck solicited.  flames and provocation
will be simply deleted.

randy