> If the DNSO or ICANN's existence were widely publicized, and individuals
> from a broad spectrum of the world's population were actively engaged in
> contributing to the at-large membership, perhaps only an at-large membership
> would be necessary.
> However, this isn't true yet, and it's not likely to
> be true for some time (if ever).
There is still no need to set aside special seats for corporations or
organizations.
Nobody is stopping corporations/organizations from sending people to
participate *as* individuals.
The IETF works on the basis of individuals and not companies. Company C
and company M send lots of folks to participate and hence tend to have a
bigger voice than company I.
But since the participation is by individual, the merit of issues tends to
rise to the top and be the basis for standards or decisionmaking.
When one allows corporate/organizational representation the next question
is "how many votes does each get?"
The answer could be "one", which means that my own vote is exactly equal
to that of Microsoft (which, to me is fair - and no, I am not joking.)
The answer could be "For Microsoft it is 27,852, for General Motors it is
75,876, for the CIX its 212..." The arbitrary nature of such assignments
is patently obvious (at least it is to me.)
The exact same issue of weighting arises if one substitutes classes of
membership instead of weighted votes.
The only answer that works is one person one vote, one organization zero
vote.
--karl--
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
