RE: Draft New Draft

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Kent Crispin wrote,
> On Tue, Feb 09, 1999 at 12:08:00AM -0500, Antony Van Couvering wrote:
> [...]
> >
> > So, while I would agree with you and Kent that it would be nice
> to have a
> > DNSO with completely neutral mechanisms and procedures, it is hardly
> > possible.
>
> It is a worthy goal, and I believe a reasonable approximation can be
> achieved.  Your position, on the other hand, appears to be "It can't
> be perfect, so screw it: I want MINE."
>

It is a worthy goal, and the best approximation is to make sure that *all*
voices are represented, according to how people want them to be represented.
That's why I believe that it's a mistake to enumerate constituencies to
begin with -- let them form according to organic alliances rather than
according to elaborate political compromises.

The other good way to make sure that the mechanisms are as neutral as
possible is to remove executive power from the Names Council -- let it be
(as you and I were as PAB Chairs) merely facilitators and seekers of
consensus.  Don't you remember, Kent, the way that the PAB Observers in POC
simply disappeared -- became POC members instead of PAB members -- and
wouldn't tell us what was going on up there?  Power corrupts, and so on...

Now that my position doesn't coincide with yours, you seem to feel that mine
must be based on grasping acquisitiveness.  It isn't, I have nothing to gain
(or lose).  Your arguments are becoming emotional.

Antony