Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC, keepconstituencies

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 05:16 PM 1/1/01, Milton Mueller wrote:
>I'll make the same response to you, Greg, that I just made to Joop. You 
>are putting forward solutions before documenting problems convincingly. It 
>will be very easy for the people who control NC and the Board to ignore 
>recommendations that they don't like.

Agreed, Milton. I put this one on the table at this point for two reasons.

The first reason is because I think there is value in recognizing formal 
constituencies/communities of interest. Formal constituencies can provide 
the framework for determining if all interests have been considered in 
policy decisions. The problems I see with the way they have been 
implemented are two-fold. A - The current system of creation/recognition is 
actually top-down, in that any new constituency must be approved by the 
board, and B - tying constituencies to NC votes means that every change in 
the constituency structure will require a change in the NC structure, with 
concomitant struggles over questions of power gain and loss.

The second reason is structural. Most of the arguments over constituencies 
actually have to do with how the NC and BoD members are selected, and don't 
appear to me to actually be concerned with any of the other, valuable, 
contributions that formal constituencies can make to the overall 
functionality of the DNSO. Currently the NC "pie" is cut into pieces by the 
constituency structure, and most of the arguments and frictions are about 
how the pie is divided. The question I'm raising is "is the pie necessary 
at all?" Unless there is a compelling reason for the NC to exist (functions 
that cannot be performed in other ways), dissolving the NC would redirect 
focus within the DNSO from arguing over the pie to arguing positions on 
substantive issues.

>It will be harder for them to ignore a detailed bill of particulars that 
>shows how and why the DNSO is dysfunctional.

One would hope :)

The informal poll I put up (http://www.pollcat.com/ty0p1puu4w_a - responses 
at http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a )had 20 responses to date. 
This is not an overwhelming response in a group of 140, but it does show 
some trends. Across the board, there is a sense that the current structure 
is not working well on any level. I don't see a way we can objectively 
document the sense of the WG's opinions as to whether the current system 
is  "working" or not in another way, but perhaps you can make a suggestion.

And as I included, I believe that this proposal would address these areas.

>B. Questions and friction areas addressed by the proposal
>          Proper definition of GA function and role
>          facilitation of GA member participation in the GA
>          facilitation of Constituency member participation in the GA
>          facilitation of goals for constituencies
>          facilitation of consensus-building goals
>          inclusive representation
>          facilitation of outreach goals

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com