Re: [wg-review] Representative Figures

[Luca Muscarà <luca@unive.it>]

I can't endorse Kent's vision of the world on this regard especially after
reading so many times the sentence that closes all his postings.
I probably have 1/1000 of Kent's understanding of the net and its
regulations.
Nevertheless, with all due respect to Twain, I reject this cynical attempt
to inject pessimism in this wg.
Philosophically, politically and culturally we could discuss forever on the

issue of who is representing who, where.
Most of our political systems are quite stuck in this contradiction. When
people vote--if they do--only figures matter.
If you think you can solve quantitatively the problem just by adding
members to members, good luck.
If it was the President's election it may have worked.
But this is not it and the scope of this wg is to produce some quality
input, exactly what large organizations usually lack.
Was it Einstein that said "the genius' spark is individual" and Fermi that
"only small teams produce great results".
So why continuing in this childish attempt to delegitimate this wg and its
interim chair rather than doing constructive criticism?
The legitimation of this wg comes from the quality of its output and by the

universality expressed by many of its concerns, like the
language/translation issue clearly shows. And sorry if I misunderstood.
English is not my mother tongue.

Luca Muscarà



Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 22, 2001 at 03:28:48PM -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Kent raises an interesting point.  Just how
> > representative of the ICW are the NC and the
> > current DNSO?  I have compiled the available
> > figures below:
> >
> >
> > Without the unverifiable number of IP Constituency
> > Members, that makes for a total of approximately
> > 562 members (of all consituencies of the DNSO)
> > being represented on the NC.
>
> We've been around this tree before.  The BC, IPC, and ISP constituencies
> have members who are organizations and/or organizations of
> organizations.  For example, the International Chambers of Commerce is a
> member of the BC -- it has thousands of businesses *and
> associations of businesses* who are members, and thus the ICC can
> legitimately claim to represent at some level perhaps a million
> individual companies.
>
> That's an extreme example, but in general it is safe to say that those
> three constituencies represent the interests of a very broad set of
> their defined populations.
>
> The registrar and registry constituencies actively represent a large
> percentage of their representative populations.
>
> The non-commercial constituency is probably the least representative of
> its defined population, but it has organizations with many thousands of
> members.
>
> > The question is:  Is this an adequate figure of
> > representation to claim anywhere near sufficient
> > consideration of the interests of the Internet
> > Community as a whole?
>
> Within their respective classes, there is absolutely no question that
> the constituencies are in general quite representative.
>
> --
> 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


--
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