Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - eliminate NC, keepconstituencies

[Greg Burton <sidna@feedwriter.com>]

At 07:02 AM 1/4/01, Harald Alvestrand wrote:
>Trying to think outside the box, one could imagine wanting a structure where:
>
>- The process of getting sensible proposals before the governing body
>   allows open participation, and allows the creation of expert groups to form
>   those recommendations based on qualifications, NOT representativity

Yes! both/and. One reason I like the concept of rather open "formal 
constituencies" and working groups is that they can naturally deal with 
issues within their realm of competence. The other reason I like the 
concept of easily formed working groups is that if a reasonably sized group 
doesn't like the direction of one WG, they could form their own and issue a 
counter paper. Under the current structure, which promotes adversarial 
relations rather than consensus, it's very difficult for any coherent 
position(s) to be adequately stated for evaluation.

>- An action could be adopted only with a significant consensus of interests
>- Any action could be blocked by a significant grouping of interests, but
>   NOT by representatives of a single interest acting alone

Regards,
Greg

sidna@feedwriter.com

--
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