RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> I believe the DNSO should have a constituency structure. The formation of
> Internet Policy is inevitable, even if only to express that the policy
> should be "mostly hands-off".

Perhaps I'm being more dense than usual, but I don't see the logic.

Perhaps we are using the same words in different ways?  I don't mind
"constituencies" as long as they are declared by their own members, have
no official standing, and have no voice except as reflected by the
combined voices of those who chose to support its position.

My objection is to "official" constituencies - that represent some third
party's dictat as to who shall be lumped with whom on what issues and with
what degree of voting power.

> Perhaps if we could identify the factions than are NOT represented now, we
> could make some progress.

That is an infinite list, one that is not amenable to enumeration.  The
subtleties of individual opinion are not consistent with the coercive
grouping that are the present "constituency" structure.

The atoming unit of interest is the invidual person. Thus we ought to
allow each person to decide for himself/herself how to best proceed and
with whom to join forces, if anyone.  If people chose to join together,
who are we to say no?  If people chose not to join togeher, again, who
are we to say no?

		--karl--