Re: [wg-review] Bounced Message from Jon

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Jan 02, 2001 at 12:43:57PM -0700, Greg Burton wrote:
> 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 problem is that there is no way to assign weights to the 
stakeholder groups.  Therefore it doesn't make any difference whether 
you say "DNSO" or "NC" -- the basic problem transcends them both.

> >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".

That can't be right.  There is nothing special about the NC -- there are
a myriad of organizations with similar structures that don't suffer
these problems. 

[...]

> On a broader, philosophical level, the existence of a Names Council 
> conflates issues of power and control (representativeness included) into 
> the issues of consensus.

Nonsense.  The issues of power and control preceed any particular 
structure. 

> 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".

Ask yourself who it is that is looking at the distribution of power.

> As long as there is an NC, we will need to keep looking at the distribution 
> of power.......

Once again, there is nothing special about the NC.  What you are really 
saying is "as long as there is a distribution of power, we will need to 
keep looking at the distribution of power".  That is, you are lost in a 
tautology that has little to do with the NC per se.

Could you tell me what you think the "power" is that is being
distributed?

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html