Re: [ga] Structure Taskforce Update No 3
On Thu, 17 Jan 2002, DPF wrote:
> >I would suggest that the minimum level be however many people vote.
> >All of these "minimum participation levels" are a distraction perpetrated
> >by entrenched interests with the aim of preventing representation.
> What is proposed is not an actual minimum voting level but a minimum
> membership level before one holds a vote.
Which is exactly what I am arguing against. Given the questionable
benefits that any individual receives from participation within the ICANN
structure, such individual participation should be encouraged, not
discouraged by implementation of arbitrary hurdles to representation.
> >Apologies to those that might view this as American-centric(insert your
> >country of origin if it makes you feel better) but does the U.S. decide
> >that it can't elect officials unless a set number of individuals or
> >percentage of the populace vote?
> Yet many organisations do have quorums. Would be good to have more
> feedback on this issue though.
I'm more familiar with quorums in the context of board meetings as opposed
to votes of members.
Further, many organizations provide direct benefits to their "members"(which
ICANN "leadership" has gone to great lengths to avoid any responsibilities
related to.) What pray tell are the direct benefits that an individual
acting as an individual gains from participation within ICANN?
Stealthgeeks,LLC. Operations Consulting
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html