[2363] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Re: The Membership of FNC Advisory Committee - Minutes Available yet?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Richard Mandelbaum)
Wed Feb 19 16:23:54 1992
To: sean@dsl.pitt.edu (sean mclinden)
Cc: rma@tsar.cc.rochester.edu, com-priv@psi.com, cook@tmn.com
In-Reply-To: Your message of Wed, 19 Feb 92 13:48:45 -0500.
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 92 16:18:18 -0500
From: Richard Mandelbaum <rma@tsar.cc.rochester.edu>
I think that we are , to some extent, a self selected group who are not
representative of anyone but ourselves.
In addition, the world is not a non-hierarchical system.
com-priv is. For better or worse , position and reputation have a great
deal of impact on the world at large. Much as we may not like it what the
CSPP says, with its membership of the CEO's of Apple,ATT,Compaq,CDC,Cray,
Data General,DEC,HP,IBM,Sun,Tandem and Wang is more likely to be
taken seriously than what any group of 12 members of com-priv says
or even than what the FNAC says. In fact the CSPP report was
indirectly responsible for the movement of 10's of millions of
dollars in proposed HPCC money from networking to software research.
If you really want influence , lobby the CSPP!!
(P.S. It is not an elective group either!)
____________________
"The Committee is the FNAC and its members are chosen based on their
ability to advise FNC on policy, not their technical ability or
knowledge of networks."
OK, so how do you determine "their ability to advise FNC"? It`s a fair
question. I elect people to Government, they appoint and hire other
people who appoint and hire other people and so on, and at some point,
those "other people" become advisors that help to shape public policy.
But those "other people" are not accountable to me or the voters or
the taxpayers. So, how does one determine "their ability to advise FNC
"?
My question is quite serious. I have seen a great number of advisory
committees constituted, in part, by people who *because of their name
or reputation or connections or whatever* are assumed to be reprsentat
ives
of an industry or interest group but who, frequently, represent their
own personal opinion. This newsgroup is full of them, myself included.
But this newsgroup is a semi-open process in which people are free
to assert opinion and be rebuked or supported. I say "semi-open" becau
se
penetration is absent in some key areas. And given that we have such
tools as this, is this not a better medium, the open consensus process
,
than getting a small group behind doors where accountability is
quenstionable?
Note that I am not attempting to assert "conspiracy" or even suggestin
g
that bad motives are at stake. Rather, I am suggesting that we have a
tool for openness and personal participation in government and even
if we do choose to use a representative process, we should be able to
do a better job of guaranteeing representation than the private select
ion
of an advisory panel.
Sean
