[ga] Re: [council] GA

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-05-31 16:28:09 +0200, Philip Sheppard wrote:

>   The NC has not said it wants to disenfranchise anyone. It has  
>   redefined the role of the general assembly as being the meeting  
>   point for stakeholders. The GA envisaged is not intended to  
>   fulfil the existing dual role of today's GA.

>   The argument should be - who are the stakeholders? Agree on  
>   them, and once they self-organise get them round the table and  
>   in the new DNSO and new GA.

While that sounds nice in theory, it would be unlikely to happen  
with the current NC recommendations: For most existing  
constituencies, the incentives created would suggest _not_ to add  
new constituencies.  Pretty much the only result of the current  
recommendations (as far as that's concerned) would probably be a lot 
more of conflict over who fulfills what conditions, and what these  
conditions should look like.  (With the R&E committee  
recommendations, the incentives look different, so it may indeed be  
possible to end up with a - rather - easy process for including new  
constituencies when you start from there.)

The very minimum the NC should add to its recommendations is a  
tentative list of legitimate interests which are (1) recognized, but 
(2) not _yet_ represented in the DNSO.  Individual domain name  
registrants, for instance.  Just giving the current list of  
constituencies (and nothing more) sends the wrong kind of message.

>   So, the question remains, how can individual opinion not so  
>   self-organised be factored into decision making ?

Certainly not by public comment processes, as envisioned by the NC  
recommendations.  Most of these processes have basically been a tool 
to gather some support, and to demonstrate that there are no grave  
objections from anyone one should have listened to.  They have  
_not_ been a method to gather actual input.  (To begin with, most of 
these processes have typically happened in the _end_ of a 
policy-making process.)

Also, thinking abou the GA as a body which is solely intended for  
cross-established-constituency dialogue leaves a several _possible_ 
functions open:

 - Dialogue with veterans.  The GA's members form part of the DNSO's 
   institutional memory, in particular those who have been hanging 
   around for a long time.  Roberto Gaetano is an example.
 - Dialogue across SOs.
 - Dialogue with the members of groups who perceive themselves as 
   stakeholders, but have not yet gone through the constituency 
   accreditation process.
 - Dialogue (as opposed to receiving comments!) with interested 
   members of the general public.
 - Flexible addition of interested individuals to task forces. 

And yes, I do maintain that this is best done in _one_ place. At the 
same time, this means that the idea to close membership in a  
meaningful GA is a bad one.  It just won't work.


Anyway, this discussion is kind of idle...  I could imagine that it  
may be reasonable to freeze the current NC recommendations, and that 
the NC (and not only the NC!) should rather turn its attention to  
the recommendations which have been produced by the Evolution and  
Reform committee.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
--
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