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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 01:41:39AM -0800, Chris McElroy wrote:
> > That question has already been asked and answered through a very long
> > and ardous process, and the answer is before us: we have constituencies,
> > and we have them for very good reasons.
> >
> By who? Who was represented when that question was answered?
[...]
> Who are these "People" who made the case? And who were they representing?
> Whose interests were not represented once again when these decisions were
> made?

By the people and organizations that participated in the DNSO formation
process, which took place over many months and included, directly or
through indirect representation, literally hundreds of thousands of
participants.  There were public meetings in Barcelona, Monterrey,
Washington, Paris, and elsewhere, endless discussions in email lists,
etc.  In other words, far, far, far greater representation than is
present in this WG, or even conceivably *could* be present in this
WG -- there really isn't any comparison.

Please note that the purpose of this WG is to identify ways to make
the DNSO more productive.  That purpose is not at all served by trying
to change the fundamental structure of the DNSO.  Instead, such attempts
are certain to be disruptive in the extreme, and to totally paralyze the
DNSO.  Indeed, I'm beginning to wonder if this is not the hidden intent
of this WG. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain