Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction
I agree with Ken that broad support among all DNSO constituencies is desirable. And he is right that the NC will ask about it.
However, it should also be pointed out that the argument here is somewhat circular and that games can be played with the constituency structure.
If you create a constituency structure that vastly overweights certain interests and condenses vast portions of the rest of the world into one or zero constituencies in the DNSO, of course you can make it appear as if a proposal that has 300 votes for and 3 votes against doesn't have "enough" support.
This is in fact the whole problem with the current DNOS structure. So to use that structure to deligitimize expressions of dissatisfaction with the DNSO is, as I said, circular reasoning. This should be noted in our report.
Whenever ICANN has open elections (such as the @large election) and open processes (such as WGs) based on one-person, one vote, the results differ incredibly from constituency-based votes. That in itself is something that the WG report ought to take note of.
>>> "Ken Stubbs" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 01/02/01 10:47AM >>>
the poll would be significantly more informative and useful if we knew what constituancies the voters represented.
i am certain that this will be one of the questions asked by the names
council members when reviewing the report so i will ask it now rather than
it would be quite troublesome if it ended up that 80 -90 % of the voters
were members of just 1 or 2 constituancies yet their impressions of the
effectiveness of their own constituancy were "blanketly attributed" to all
i look forward to further elaboration
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Burton" <email@example.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Rough Proposal C - correction
> At 11:47 AM 1/2/01, Greg Burton wrote:
> >The informal poll I put up (
> is the poll
> > http://www.pollcat.com/report/ty0p1puu4w_a
> are the responses.
> Sorry about the formatting.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html