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

["Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M." <rod@cyberspaces.org>]

I think Karl's point has a great deal of appeal. One alternative I would
favor, however, is that we keep the DNSO structure except to permit
self-organizing constituencies to be recognized within the DNSO without the
gatekeeping "approval" role that the board maintained in reviewing the
existing constituencies. Instead, the board could set a couple of objective
criteria to ensure that the constituency is representative of some interest,
then let the democratic process work itself. Why should so few groups have
direct authority to recommend policy to the board anyway?

Rod

----- Original Message -----
From: "Karl Auerbach" <karl@CaveBear.com>
To: "Peter de Blanc" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>
Cc: <wg-review@dnso.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:02 AM
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--
>
>
>
>