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

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

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

See below.

Gene...

- -----Original Message-----
From: Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M. [mailto:rod@cyberspaces.org]
Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 10:03 AM
To: Karl Auerbach; Peter de Blanc
Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC


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. 

I'm OK so far.

Why should so few groups have
direct authority to recommend policy to the board anyway?

Here we have the potential danger of the "infinite granularity" model:
 Everyone gets representation, but no decisions are made.  Bad idea.


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--
>
>
>
>

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

iQA/AwUBOktbunKYiraY8fZCEQL7LACdFziI1BacmMqeBOU3E09VMi4dBTsAoNaI
QF9n57AANooJLLHdHKUkkXUp
=Z4/U
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----