[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: draft application]
- Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1998 00:22:39 -0500
- From: Michael Sondow <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: draft application]
Kent Crispin a écrit:
> On Tue, Dec 15, 1998 at 09:30:46PM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >> Am I reading this correctly - Names Council members are elected by the
> >> entire DNSO membership, rather than by the consituencies they represent? If
> >> one or two constituencies constitute a majority of DNSO members, they could
> >> determine the entire NC membership.
> > You're quite right. It doesn't make much sense the way it's written.
> Clarification: He is right about the DNSO electing NC members. His
> second statement is, however, incorrect. Concretely, imagine the At
> Large had 95% of the DNSO members. According to his second
> statement, they could determine the entire NC membership. But of
> course, they don't get to nominate candidates in the other
> constituencies, so their choices are limited.
They may not nominate candidates in the other constitutencies, but they
could, by the force of their numbers, decide which candidates are
elected, and thus see to it that those are elected who favor their
> Anyway, while it is true that there is a theoretical possibility of
> what you describe happening, in practice it seems rather unlikely,
> and would require obvious contortions. Remember that the DNSO also
> has a requirement from ICANN to maintain fair processes -- a really
> egregious example of vote buying would be grounds for
> disenfranchisement of the SO, or something like that. But there are
> more contrived examples that will handle this case, as well --
> imagine that the Mafia is employed to threaten the families of all
> the Board members if they don't go along with the whole scheme...
> There is no perfect solution -- given enough money and evil, any
> system will fail. Democracy only works if there are more good
> people than bad people.
Why make it easier for a bad outcome and at the same time complicate the
election procedure? Why not just have each constituency choose its own
NC members? I can't see what the use is in having all DNSO members vote
for all candidates.
It's not a matter of good and bad people. All people want to see the
things which are good for them come to pass. Those with the money,
power, and numbers to influence decisions in their favor will use those
things. There need to be mechanisms that offset these natural
tendencies. Limited candidacies and equal representation help. Majority
voting of the entire membership for all NC seats doesn't help.
> > It seems that this whole NC membership question
> > needs more work. It's not the only thing.
> Make suggestions.
I did submit some comments on draft 7, but so far there hasn't been any
discussion of them. I'll re-submit them.
> Take a look at INTA's "one-person, one-vote" model.
I'll do that.
International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU) xxxxx
http://www.iciiu.org email@example.com xxxxxxx