RE: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure

["Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>]

Harald, et al...

Your comment about WGs being composed of people "PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS"
is a good point. The "stakeholders" (the constituencies) presumably are all
interested in  "keeping the Internet going". Ultimately, without some solid
policy, which, by the very nature of the Internet, must be international in
scope, the Internet cannot grow and expand. It IS in the working groups that
the policy is devloped. (albeit sometimes very slowly). One can only assume
that those who are in the working groups are there because they are
committed to the work. One can hope that they will think and act with
consideration for all stakeholders (constituencies) while they pursue an
outcome which will contribute to the advancement of the Internet as a whole.

The concept of an organization "accepting or rejecting" the output of a
working group _could_ be construed as making policy, if only by negation.

Perhaps any output of a working group that is unacceptable in its current
form should simply be returned to that group with comment for further work,
rather than being summarily rejected.

peter de Blanc



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Harald
Tveit Alvestrand
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 3:01 AM
To: ga@dnso.org
Subject: [ga] Components of a new DNSO structure


I do not know if it is possible to replace the constituency structure with
something better.

But I suspect that a better structure would contain at least the following
elements:

- A forum where any voice capable of expressing itself reasonably can be
   heard.
   The GA attempts to fulfil this function now; opinions vary on whether it
is
   a success at that.

- A principle that working groups should consist of all the people willing
and
   capable of giving competent input, PRESENT AS INDIVIDUALS.
   Working group reports should be given in the name of the working group
   chair(s), with lists of persons "supporting" or "opposing". NOT
   representing; "in MY honest opinion" support or opposition.

- Some kind of organization capable of accepting or rejecting the output of
   a working group, selected on a basis that people acknowledge as
reasonable.
   NOT an organization with the power to make detailed policy on their own.
   This is the place on the organization chart where the current NC sits.

It's possible that the constituencies have a place in determining the
"reasonable" composition of the decision function; it's certain that the
constituencies currently serve to activate many of the people we need to
work in working groups.

But I believe that they do not serve an useful function if we attempt to
position them as debate partners.

            Harald

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html