Re: [ga] Who wants "governance" without "representation?"
There in lies the problem. You understand it on a theoretical basis. But you do not understand the users. Someone elected by them would presumeably understand them far better, cases on point are Andy and Karl. One cannot be holistic if one only knows one end of the spectrum.
vint cerf wrote:
> it would seem that eric and I are both correct in the sense that eric
> argues that specific knowledge needs to be "represented" (as opposed to
> groups?) and I think the directors must have feel a holistic sense of
> responsibility to Internet as a whole.
> At 09:37 AM 3/18/2002 -0800, Mike Roberts wrote:
> >Eric is correct. In Jon's initial conception in June of 1998, there was to be a twelve person board with experts from the names, protocols and address communities taking nine seats, and the three other seats to be filled by individuals representing the public at large, which is a fairly standard phenomenon on tax-exempt organization boards.
> >But the important point is that the perspective which the Directors bring to their work is of the character, "Based on what you know and the facts before you, what is the best decision for all affected parts of the Internet?" Having representation from the experts was, in Jon's view, a way of lowering the risks associated with broadening the oversight of the DNS from he and his fellow engineers to a consensus based organization representing all relevant interests.
> This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
> Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
This message was passed to you via the email@example.com list.
Send mail to firstname.lastname@example.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html