RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Parties are not constituencies any more than parties are congressional
districts. That much is self-evident... and obvious.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joanna Lane [mailto:jo-uk@rcn.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 6:46 AM
> To: Karl Auerbach
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> Importance: High
> 
> 
> Karl, I respect your position, but is it realistic? 
> Individuals register
> with a particular party, not because they agree 100% with all 
> its views, but
> because on balance, it's position is the most agreeable, or because
> alternative choices are intensely disagreeable. As you know 
> only too well,
> it takes a very special person with talent, imagination and 
> motivational
> skills to seek out and rally groups of like minded people 
> willing to join
> together and create a new group/ political party from scratch, not to
> mention enormous resources. Most  people want clear choices 
> laid out before
> them and imho there is nothing wrong with Peter de Blanc's 
> suggestion to
> identify factions that are not currently represented, as a practical
> approach to solving present difficulties and filling some, if 
> not all of the
> most obvious gaps (such as STLD and IDNH as per Jefsey 
> Morfin). Added to
> that, there may be infinite initiatives presented directly to 
> the BoD, but I
> suggest that at least a significant minority will never be 
> able to create
> the opportunity for themselves, however willing they may be.
> 
> Joanna Lane
> Individual Domain Name Holder
> Self Employed
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-wg-review@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-review@dnso.org]On
> Behalf Of Karl Auerbach
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 4:03 AM
> To: Peter de Blanc
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 
> 
> 
> > I believe the DNSO should have a constituency structure. 
> The formation of
> > Internet Policy is inevitable, even if only to express that 
> the policy
> > should be "mostly hands-off".
> 
> Perhaps I'm being more dense than usual, but I don't see the logic.
> 
> Perhaps we are using the same words in different ways?  I don't mind
> "constituencies" as long as they are declared by their own 
> members, have
> no official standing, and have no voice except as reflected by the
> combined voices of those who chose to support its position.
> 
> My objection is to "official" constituencies - that represent 
> some third
> party's dictat as to who shall be lumped with whom on what 
> issues and with
> what degree of voting power.
> 
> > Perhaps if we could identify the factions than are NOT 
> represented now, we
> > could make some progress.
> 
> That is an infinite list, one that is not amenable to 
> enumeration.  The
> subtleties of individual opinion are not consistent with the coercive
> grouping that are the present "constituency" structure.
> 
> The atoming unit of interest is the invidual person. Thus we ought to
> allow each person to decide for himself/herself how to best 
> proceed and
> with whom to join forces, if anyone.  If people chose to join 
> together,
> who are we to say no?  If people chose not to join togeher, again, who
> are we to say no?
> 
> 		--karl--
> 
> 
>