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

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

Karl, I respect your position, but is it realistic? Individuals register
with a particular party, not because they agree 100% with all its views, but
because on balance, it's position is the most agreeable, or because
alternative choices are intensely disagreeable. As you know only too well,
it takes a very special person with talent, imagination and motivational
skills to seek out and rally groups of like minded people willing to join
together and create a new group/ political party from scratch, not to
mention enormous resources. Most  people want clear choices laid out before
them and imho there is nothing wrong with Peter de Blanc's suggestion to
identify factions that are not currently represented, as a practical
approach to solving present difficulties and filling some, if not all of the
most obvious gaps (such as STLD and IDNH as per Jefsey Morfin). Added to
that, there may be infinite initiatives presented directly to the BoD, but I
suggest that at least a significant minority will never be able to create
the opportunity for themselves, however willing they may be.

Joanna Lane
Individual Domain Name Holder
Self Employed

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:03 AM
To: Peter de Blanc
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC



> 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--