Re: [wg-review] Bounced Message from Jon

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 11:29 AM 1/2/01, Kent Crispin wrote:
>That is, in order for [1] to be "transparently wrong" you would have to
>answer the following question strongly in the affirmative:
>
>   Do the current constituencies well "represent" their associated
>   stakeholder communities?

yes - 0
generally - 2
sometimes - 5
rarely - 9
no - 3

>To review: we agree that (in your words) "there is no way to compute how
>much representation each of the relevant stakeholder communities *ought
>to* have on the NC".
...
>It therefore follows that the idea that the DNSO should be some kind of
>representative governing body is fatally flawed from the very beginning.
>It isn't a representative body, and it *can't* be.

Replace "DNSO" with "NC" and I'll agree completely.

>The problems with the current system are NOT that it is
>unrepresentative.  The problems are much more mundane -- the current
>system doesn't accomplish WORK.

One of the reasons it isn't accomplishing work is that the existence of the 
NC leads to these arguments over "representativeness". Personally, I feel 
that arguing over constituencies is rather larger than a red herring - 
perhaps we could call it a "red flounder", since floundering is what we 
wind up doing. It appears to me that most of the work accomplished in the 
DNSO is accomplished through WG's and constituencies, anyway. In terms of 
actual work flow, the NC becomes a bottleneck rather than a facilitation 
mechanism. I may not like what a given constituency comes up with as a 
position, or what a given WG comes up with as a recommendation, but that 
doesn't mean it isn't actual work of some value.

On a broader, philosophical level, the existence of a Names Council 
conflates issues of power and control (representativeness included) into 
the issues of consensus. Most of the discussion seems to center around "who 
has power and why they won't give it up/who should have power" rather than 
the questions of "does this structure actually facilitate consensus". A 
rule of thumb:

"If you need to keep looking at the distribution of power, you're not 
looking at a consensus process".

As long as there is an NC, we will need to keep looking at the distribution 
of power.......to my mind, a compelling argument for eliminating it IF we 
truly believe a consensus process is the most desirable approach.


Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com