At 12:06 PM 1/31/99 -0500, you wrote:
>While I see nothing wrong with adding new constituencies, we ought to
>make sure that we create constituencies that people active in this
>process would actually belong to. What I mean to say is that I haven't
>seen a whole lot of interest from colleges and universities, free speech
>interests, and even a more broadly defined public intererest group in DNS
>policy or in the creation of the DNSO.
Exactly right. Another name for "constituency" is "Special Interest Group,"
which is sometimes (No, it isn't; I just made this up!) called a "Particular
Interest Group," or "PIG." Another name is "lobby." The colleges and
universities, private citizens, Daddies of girls with names like Veronica,
. . . etc., will NEVER have a voice in the affairs of the Internet so long as
such a constituency model is adopted.
>
>Which is not to say that we should exclude them from the initial model.
>But perhaps it would be better to create groups that embody the interests
>that have been active in this process. If we get it wrong, there is a
>provision in the draft bylaws for the creation of new constituencies and
>the assignment of new seats. And if we've got it wrong, we're going to
>hear about it pretty quick.
Trouble is, YOU'LL NEVER HEAR! Mom & Pop's Herb Emporium
wouldn't know what an ICANN, a IFWP, a MAC, ISOC, or any other
kind of alphabet soup is if it bit them in the face. Folks like that
don't know what's going on, and they have no duty to know. But
they are entitled to as much free access to the Internet under
policies that they don't have a clue about but that are yet fair to
them as does anyone else.
>
>It might be better to err on the side of too few constituencies than to
>create constituencies that no one joins.
So Activist X that has an axe to grind joins every constituency,
Mom and Pop don't join any, and the POWERS THAT BE, of which
this group complains mightily, takes over, except that in the immortal
words of Pogo, "We have met the enemy, and he is us."
If we devote our drafting
>efforts to creating a mechanism for fluid, changing constituencies, we'll
>always have built in protection.
And you think this is an administrative nightmare now! What barn full of
keyboard plonkers are you going to get to do all that?
Bill Lovell
