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____________________________________________
