<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [ga] policy-making options
At 02:20 9/04/02 +0200, Alexander Svensson wrote:
>Hello Thomas,
>
>the options list is most helpful!
Indeed it is. The pro's and Con's that we are all listing here are useful
guideposts for whatever on-line representational structure is now being
created.
>Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org> wrote (quotes reformatted):
> >In order to add a bit more structure to the discussion on policy-making,
> here are a couple of parameters by which policy-making can be "tuned", or
> by which different options may be characterized. Note that "working
> group" and "task force" are mostly used interchangeably in what follows:
> >
> > - Composition of working group: Same for all topics at a given time
> > (<=> names council or board does everything itself); appointed by
> > council or board (strict task force model; committees as used by
> > board); appointed by stakeholder groups (loose task force model);
> > self-selected (working group model).
>
>Some pros and cons:
>
>Same for all topics at a given time
> - high risk of excluding concerned groups
> - huge individual workload
> - not every group member can be an expert for every topic
> - if done on board level: no checks/balances
> + continuity
> + limited, workable group size
>
>direct appointment/strict task force model
> - risk of excluding concerned groups
> + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
> + workload more evenly distributed
> + limited, workable group size
>
>indirect appointment/loose task force model
> + less risk of excluding concerned groups
> + group members (at least in theory) chosen by expertise
> + workload more evenly distributed
> + limited, workable group size
>
>open working group model
> - may result in too large groups
> - working group (and its proposals) may be dismissed as self-selected
> + little risk of excluding concerned groups or individuals
> + workload can be distributed well
Dismissing a WG for being self-selected is not necessarily justified. In
many cases self-selection is more legitimate than selection.
Large groups are a plus, not a minus, as long as their energy can be
organized and distributed.
- Minus is that an open WG that works with a mailing list, may be hindered
by individuals with a mission to be contentious. Remedies are moderation
and/or the use of web based ("pull" rather than "push") discussion
mechanisms.
> > - Communication with public while work is going on: Listen-only plus
> > behind-the-curtain discussions with groups perceived important
> > (board; board committees); active outreach (some of the current
> > task forces; counterexample: dot-org; it may be argued that
> > dot-org registrant representation was lacking; outreach should
> > include _exchange_ of views and arguments); outreach built into
> > self-selected membership (working group model).
>
>Listen-only plus behind-the-curtain dicussions
> - intransparent process
> - privileges powerful groups with close contacts to e.g. board
> - decisions may face (surprising amounts of) criticism
> + not very costly ;)
Yes :), democracy carries a price tag.
>
>Active outreach
> + more transparency by actively collecting input
> + depending on method, more informed input
> - active outreach leads to follow-up work
> - quality of responses may vary considerably
- outreach can be engineered to cover a specific audience.
> which may make weighting difficult
>
>Outreach built into WG membership
> + exchange of views possible
> - may additionally favour WG members which are eloquent
> and permanently online
> + high level of transparency
> - may not reach out to all groups
> - probably better suited for individuals than groups (?)
>
>(Obviously, adding the + and - is not sufficient.)
>
> > Additional options (orthogonal): Public archives of discussions;
> > dedicated comment periods.
> >
> > - Interaction with the board: Through intermediate body (DNSO
> > process via names council; may or may not have power to modify
> > input from WG); directly (board committees).
>
>This is perhaps the most interesting question. Do intermediate
>bodies refine the policies and work as a checks-and-balances
>system -- or do they blur responsibilities, alter the bottom-up
>nature of the process and create a superfluous layer inbetween?
>(Both probably?)
The intermediate nature is necessary to make the bottom-up process
workable and on-the-record.
Policies do get better formulated if they are subject to a longer and more
participative process.
Direct input with Board committees will favour professional lobby groups.
Thanks Thomas and Alexander for starting this fundamental re-think thread.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
interim webmaster
www.icannatlarge.com
Sign up and spread the word.
--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|