[wg-review] Bounced Message from Jon

["YJ Park" <yjpark@myepark.com>]

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 20:58:11 -0500
To: wg-review@dnso.org
From: Jonathan Weinberg <weinberg@mail.msen.com>
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Reformulation Questions
In-Reply-To: <20001229144330.F6003@songbird.com>

At 02:43 PM 12/29/2000 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
 >[snip]
>there is no algorithm by which the
>representational weight of the various stakeholder communities can be
>weighed.


         I'm not sure, Kent, whether you mean by this [1] that there is no
way to compute how much representation each of the relevant stakeholder
communities *in fact* has on the NC, under the current system; or [2] that
there is no way to compute how much representation each of the relevant
stakeholder communities *ought to* have on the NC.

         My guess is that you don't mean [1], since that's transparently
wrong.  The various NC members quite explicitly act as representatives of
their constituencies.  It's easy to count how much representation each
"stakeholder community" currently has:  three members for a favored six,
one for a seventh, zero for the rest.

         If you mean [2], I agree.  The problem is that absent such an
algorithm, the current system is incoherent.  The current system features a
Names Council whose members vote, and whose votes are tallied.  It assigns
seven stakeholder groups the privilege of selecting representatives, and
assigns the number of representatives for each.  It is defensible only if
we believe that six specifically defined groups *ought* to have a
particular quantum of representation, with a different amount (soon to
change) for a seventh, and none at all for anyone else.  The fact that
there is no way to compute, top-down, how much representation each of the
relevant stakeholder communities ought to have, suggests that we should
take Karl's advice to eliminate altogether the practice of assigning NC
seats to "stakeholder communities."

Jon


Jonathan Weinberg
weinberg@msen.com