Danny:
You know, for someone that supposedly is championing a voice for individuals in the GNSO, you haven't exactly gone the extra mile by invoking the Board's authority to create a new constituency on its own motion as allowed for in the bylaws (Article X, Section 5, Paragraph 5).
I thought you knew me by now. I believe that there are two possible behaviours: one that is to look at the real world, and evaluate the possibility of a success, and play your cards trying to maximise success, even this is not what you would like in your own ideal world. The other one, is to grandstand behind your opinions, and have an infinite series of insuccesses, but maintaint virginally intact your right to complain about the rest of the world who does not understand that they are wrong. I had only very limited success in embracing the first approach, but I'm not the type of person who would ever go the other way. I claim that the (many) failures in my life are primarily lack of understanding from my part of the global picture, or lack of understanding from my part of the best strategu to get thisngs done, and therefore I learn lessons that might allow me to do better next time. To blame failures on cynic and cruel fate, or on the misunderstanding of the rest of the world of the one and only Truth that I represent, is just not my style.
If you're so committed to enhancing representative opportunities, why don't you just do the right thing for once and establish the necessary constituencies by Board fiat?
For the simple reason, that you should know very well, that it would never fly. Sure, I will have my hour of spotlight, maybe even some press coverage, but the motion would miserably fail. My problem has been, rather, to try to understand "why" it would fail. And my personal answer (and I might be wrong, so I would appreciate comments, preferring the ones who would provide rational explanations, rather than integralistic views of the world) is that the creation of an additional constituency in the GNSO would have altered the balace of power of the constituencies, and would tharefore have the immediate opposition of who felt their power position threatened. And the Board would have chosen not to go into open opposition to the GNSO constituencies (rightfully so, IMHO). So, what the GNSO Review WG has proposed, is a mechanism by which the creation of new constituencies does not alter the balance of voting among stakeholder groups. You might have noticed that the attitude has already changed: nobody anymore opposes the introduction of individual registrants, quite the contrary, the only concern I have heard, quite insistently, is about how would the non-contractual, non-commercial, stakeholder group be polulated with interests beyond the ones currently represented by the NCUC. I don't know whether this proposal will be endorsed by the Board. But I can assure you that, if accepted, the creation of an individual registrants group will be just the matter of time. And a short time, just few months. And I am sure that you perfectly know that, even if you try to play dumb. And this is the exact reason why you are devoting all your energy to propose all sorts of alternatives: to sabotage this plan.
Why all the silly games?
I was thinking to ask this very question to you. As you see from the above, I have an opinion on why you play these silly games. But if you have a different one, I'm open to listen. Just please don't give me the usual lecture on how nice was the time when we had elected at-large directors. Cheers, Roberto