Re: [ifwp] Re: Individual DNSO Membership

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Sat, Nov 28, 1998 at 09:03:11PM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> > > In fact, to say "one person, one vote" is rather demagogical.
> > > Most Internet users do not have the time to spend on lists and will not
> > > express any vote, which will have as a direct consequence that a small
> > > percentage of users (i.e. the ones like us, who are active on lists) will
> > > take all decisions on their behalf.
> >
> > Any individual can always listen to some sort of "leader" and direct
> > his/her vote in accord.
> >
> > When one gives votes to organizations, one necessarily removes all or
> > some of the ability of the interested and motivated individual to act as
> > that individual sees fit.
>
> That's false.  The interested and motivated individual can
> participate as an individual.  It's always individuals who do the
> participation, anyway -- when an organization joins it designates a
> representative -- who is an individual.

  Your last statement here Kent doesn't make allot os sense.  Anytime
an additional individual becomes a member or and organization that organization
is strengthened to whatever degree that individual may contribute to that
organization in many respects, not to mention voting power.

>
>
> > If there are lazy individuals, then they will either not vote or will
> > vote in accord with some instructions from some leader -- the latter
> > being essentially equivalent to an "organization" but without the need
> > to cast such into inflexible concrete.
>
> The constituencies range widely in how flexible they are.  The At
> Large constituency is open to any natural person or legally
> constituted organization.  Membership in the "registry" constituency
> requires that you be an entity with write authority over a zone
> referenced directly from the root zone.

  This would be in direct violation of the White Paper as you state it here.

>
>
> >> Of course, we can have some form of "proxy", but doesn't this lead to other,
> >> well-known, problems of "capture"?
> >
> > A permanent proxy is called an "organization".
> >
> > Temporary proxies -- usually for a fixed period of time or for a single
> > election seem to work fairly well in corporate elections.
>
> They work miserably, from my experience, and almost invariably lead to a
> "self-perpetuating board".

  This is sometimes true indeed.  However the blanket statement you make here
is logically and statistically incorrect.  Can you provide some supporting
documentation for your statement here Kent?

>
>
> > > I guess the only solution (in my opinion, of course) is to have both a
> > > "general Membership" and some established groups of interest.
> >
> > By bifurcating the votes, one gives multiple votes to those who are both
> > individuals and leaders of organizations.
>
> Nope.  If you are a member of any other constituency, you can't be a
> member of the At Large constituency.  But multiple membership in
> other constituencies is allowed.  So IBM (for example) might be a
> member of the registrar, ISP, general business, and Trademark
> constituencies.  But it can't do that and also be a member of the
> "at large" constituency.

 Ok, In you model possibly not.  Would this than restrict all of IBM's
employees from being members of an "At large" Constituency also?

>
>
> > And how does one measure the appropriate weight to build in for a
> > "special interest group"?
> >
> > There are two ways?  Guess (usually wrong) or let the weight reflect the
> > number of members who agree with the group.  The latter, of course, is
> > best measured by simply letting individuals vote and see how many accord
> > with the policies of the special interest group.
>
> The latter simply institutionalizes the "tyranny of the majority".
> A special interest group that is in the majority is, by definition,
> not really a special interest group.

  This may or may not be so Kent.  There are many examples of this
throughout history.

>
>
> This discussion is somewhat moot, in any case.  We are trying to
> engage in a bottom up development process, and the weight of opinion
> seems to favor a combination contituency/open membership model.  My
> personal preference is for half the representation to come from a
> set of constituencies, and half to come from an open membership body
> -- that bicameral approach is essentially the senate/house
> division:  the senate gives fixed representation to the
> constituencies (the states), irrespective of size; whereas the house
> weights representation by population.
>
> The problem is this is really probably all overkill.  The overall
> model that is emerging, I think, is that ICANN will have several
> classes of membership -- a general, at-large membership, and various classes
> of membership associated with the SOs.  To simplify things there
> probably should be one basic membership mechanism throughout ICANN
> -- otherwise the complexity will be insane.
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                 "No reason to get excited",
> kent@songbird.com                       the thief he kindly spoke...
> PGP fingerprint:   B1 8B 72 ED 55 21 5E 44  61 F4 58 0F 72 10 65 55
> http://songbird.com/kent/pgp_key.html
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to ifwp-digest@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> subscribe-IFWP@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> unsubscribe-ifwp@lists.interactivehq.org
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email andy@interactivehq.org.
> ___END____________________________________________

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208