Kevin,
My notes on your reply interspersed in this longish reply.
Antony
At 04:09 PM 12/18/97 -0500, kconnolly@evw.com wrote:
>
>>>> "avc@netnamesusa.com" 12/18/97 02:37pm >>>
>Kevin,
>
>>You are making the chair a committee with this suggestion -- the chair
>>essentially performs the function you would assign to a committee. I
>>disagree strongly with the idea of having a Consensus Working Group
>>-- this will create a very strong, unaccountable power group
>
>I would expect that the Consensus Working Group would be subject to
>recall at the pleasure of the Membership; in addition, that the Membership
>would have an explicit method for pulling the plug on the Consensus
>Working Group concept itself
The membership can always raise up and throw the bastards out -- "when in
the course of human events" and so on. That doesn't mean that it's easy or
without risk. I think it very unhealthy to create a de facto controlling
group.
>
>> who will >have the power to say what consensus is -- and who will
>>gainsay them?
>
>The membership
We don't want to run PAB by coup and revolution.
>
>> If experience is any guide, it will be populated by the same
>>people who are appointed to POC.
>
>Could you state explicitly what experience you are referring to?
CORE.
>
>> It would spell the end of PAB as an independent body.
>
>I misunderstand. Independent of what?
Independent of the POC. Separate to any Working Group, there will be
elections of PAB reps to POC. In my opinion, these people will soon become
"POC-ified" as we have seen (in my opinion) already with our observers.
Also in my opinion, we are seeing this in CORE too.
Should your Consensus Working Group idea bear fruit, there will be a long
laborious discussion about whether the PAB reps on POC can serve on the
Consensus Working Group. Over my dissent and that of others, this will
probably be allowed -- this is the same discussion we had over the PAB
Chair and other officers being allowed to be the PAB reps on POC.
At that point we could well end up with 9 PAB reps on POC, who could also
be the "Consensus Working Group", some of whom could also be the PAB
Officers. Complete with private mailing lists, no doubt.
>From this perspective, the leadership of PAB would be essentially the PAB
people on POC, spending most of their in the heady atmosphere of power,
deciding what PAB wanted. True, the PAB could revolt, but is that what we
want?
I don't think that this is far-fetched. The concentration of power into a
few hands, and the subsequent lack of regard for the "ranks" is human
nature, and real-world examples abound, even within the confines of the
gTLD-MoU.
>
>>The PAB is an open body where anyone's message is posted to the list
>with
>>the same weight as another persons.
>
>I don't disagree that the discussion is the heart and soul of PAB. Where I
>differ is in the present practice, which might make it a little too easy
to cut
>off discussion and resort to a vote.
Discussion is the heart and soul -- but don't forget it's the head too.
The membership of PAB are not Russian serfs who do colorful folk dances --
this is where the decisions should be made.
You seem to have a big problem with voting, for reasons I don't entirely
understand. We don't want a continual stream of votes, but voting on
certain things is not a bad thing, it's a good thing. I certainly don't
see why a committee -- especially one that might have other agendas --
which subjectively guages what people think is any better or fairer than a
vote.
>
>> That is its strength as well as what
>>makes it cumbersome. A consensus in PAB, while perhaps difficult to
>>achieve, is very strong when it happens. There is no back room in PAB
>>when
>>it comes to policy issues, and only a minimal bureaucracy.
>
>>Your suggestion makes PAB a representative democracy
>
>That's simply not true. I am attempting to formalize the concept that PAB
>pays more attention to what is said rather than who is saying it.
But you only invite the question of who is paying attention to what is
said. Without knowing who might be on such a committee, I say now that you
are inviting power struggles where none are necessary. Questions of
legitimacy and conflict of interest are right around the corner with this
structure, and that's the last thing we need.
>
>> -- with the Consensus
>>WG as the controlling body
>
>Not controlling. More in the nature of a steering committee. A decidedly
>diverse steering committee.
How is this different from the officers we have elected? A parallel
structure invites problems. You cannot guarantee diversity on this
steering committee, you can only hope that it will be, just as I can only
hope that it won't concentrate power.
>
>>--, except that people won't have a chance to vote.
>
>Oy! Again with the voting shtick. Enough already :-)
If you hate votes, then I can rephrase it to say "except that people won't
have a way to make their voice listened to."
>
>>I think PAB is best served by strengthening its participatory character,
>>not by moving effective control of the decision-making process to a
>>small group.
>
>The observation has been made that ever since CORE got going, the
>level of activity at PAB has been approximately nil.
Actually I am privy to both the CORE and the PAB list, and the activity is
comparable. The PAB has not been quiet at all.
>I am suggesting that
>this WG model might get people interested/active again. What concerns
>me is why it is that so many of us are quick to find takeover conspiracies
>under every rock and behind every governance proposal?
I don't see myself as someone who quickly finds conspiracies. I don't
think it's in the least unlikely that this group, which has no purpose
other than duplicating the function of the Chair, will decide to take it
upon themselves to decide what the PAB Membership really "ought" to have
said, or to bend results ever so slightly to fit their own purposes.
That's not conspiracy, that's human nature, and our institutions ought to
be set up to guard against that sort of thing, not to encourage it.
Antony
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 30 2000 - 03:22:16 PST