<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
- To: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [council] Impovements plan - a comment on the compositon of the OSC
- From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:15:37 -0400
- In-reply-to: <12F76ED6E3024BBFB5DE8B5F9FADE599@PSEVO>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <3AA2FA67-BDA9-48F3-961D-52BBB5D4D13F@acm.org> <12F76ED6E3024BBFB5DE8B5F9FADE599@PSEVO>
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Hi,
From a life time of discussion I have come to believe that while the
ad absurdum argument is always amusing, is is rarely really pertinent
as it almost always involves taking some aspect of the proposal out
of context. In this case, you have picked on the word "serious"
without including the rest of the context which attempts to indicate
how seriousness is determined.
As I said, if they have met all of the TBD ("The definition of the new
constituency process should include the requirements that need to be
met to achieve this status") conditions to be set for what it means to
be a constituency-in-formation, such as they have a proposed charter
indicating what their interest in ICANN policy on GTLD is, they have
an active mailing list, they have members signed up, they have been
holding meetings and have been publishing comments on policy work in
progress, ...
This is what I mean by serious. I have always defended the existence
of constituencies and their ability to self define, even if other
people felt that they were really duplicates of others or not serious
in some other way. In a multi-stakeholder organization, the basic
requirement is to allow the self formation and self definition of
constituencies - as long as they meet objective pre-defined criteria
of participation, openness, transparency, etc ...
So, while I doubt the members of the CoFSM will find themselves with a
concrete interest in policy making on GTLDs, i do believe that if they
meet well defined and published objective criteria of what it means to
be serious and were under active consideration for membership in a SG,
then no, I would have no problem with them being included as observers.
a.
ps, yes i read the God Delusion. I thought it was an interesting
piece of theology. I found it interesting that he really does not
distinguish between the CoFSM and any other church.
On 10 Oct 2008, at 09:52, Philip Sheppard wrote:
Avri, re your concern about excluding constituencies in formation.
I will shortly be applying for a new constituency on behalf of the
"Members of the Church of
the Flying Spaghetti Monster"
(ref: http://www.venganza.org/ )
I regard any cynicism as to this not being a serious application as
an affront to my
religious faith.
See Dawson, Richard " The God Delusion" for an explication of the
theological arguments.
I trust you will review this application as "serious" :
ref' Doria, Avri " "I believe that once a serious group of
organizers have declared
themselves publicly.." )
Philip
PS I trust you see my point concerning the problem with any
judgement of "serious".
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|