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

["Marsh, Miles (Gene)" <MarshM@diebold.com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Joanna,

On the contrary, I believe your view may be the unrealistic one.  I
have to agree with Karl that the potential for infinite constiuencies
exists as a quagmire, and should be avoided.

As you said below, there are "obvious gaps" that can be addressed. 
Most of these have been *identified* already.  I believe it is
imperative now to fill these "obvious gaps", not identify new
constituencies.

Gene...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 9:46 AM
To: Karl Auerbach
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
Importance: High


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--



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.0.2

iQA/AwUBOktYhnKYiraY8fZCEQJhpwCfcxbwU/tIW+3h9QmCjIgeWo8eDB4AnRZ/
LD7ti/Q8B+0Mx8XDA+6oPkNB
=v8l+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----