Hi Bret,
You are correct -- I was framing the
debate, rather than describing its
spectrum.
I agree that both the AIP and CENTRE
proposals are somewhere in between.
Looking forward to tomorrow.
Jay.
At 1/25/99, 11:35 PM, Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>A few comments on Jay's summary, which sounds all the right notes.
>
>Jay Fenello wrote:
>>My impression of this process was that there are only
>>a few, major philosophical differences that must be
>>resolved. One is whether the DNSO will feature a top
>>down, or bottom up decision making process.
>
>This is the split, but all the talk about "top-down" and "bottom-up" at
>the Washington meeting tended to polarize the proposals, which really
>exist along a continuum. As I see it, strong top-down management with
>broad consensus-based policy-making can coexist, and the AIP proposal
>tried to do that. So did the CENTRE proposal. These two "hybrids" viewed
>the Names Council (and in the AIP proposal, the Research Committees) as
>"managers" of a consensus-building process, rather than as the
>policy-makers themselves.
>
>I understand that some have a concern that this does not allow quick,
>responsible decision-making when necessary, but the AIP proposal made
>allowances for this too. Section 8.2 of the AIP draft bylaws required
>policy-making by the Research Committee process "[w]henever practicable
>based on considerations of time and the complexity of the issues
>presented..." This left emergency and less important matters to the Names
>Council.
>
>If there is a place for consensus, perhaps we'll find it in a strong,
>managerial Names Council that leads a consensus-building process, when
>appropriate, among a larger group of members. I'll read all of the
>proposals again with that in mind.
>
>>The other
>>is whether the DNSO membership will be flat and
>>inclusive, or structured and limited.
>
>Isn't the open (no constituencies) vs. structured (constituencies) Names
>Council really about making sure that all interested stakeholders have a
>voice? All five proposals understand that this is necessary; the
>proponents just solve the problem in different ways.
>
>The structured proposals try to ensure a voice by blocking out seats for
>certain parties; the non-structured proposals do this by seeking
>consensus. We all agree on the need for representation, but we distrust
>the other's way of ensuring it. I don't know if a common goal will
>necessarily lead to a common solution, but maybe we can start there. Any
>ideas?
>
> -- Bret
>
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
