At 14:35 12/01/99 -0500, Kenn Stubbs wrote: >if the only members of the so were registrants, it would be very easy for >someone to corral registrant proxies and establish themselves as the >"initial so". they could then pretty well set policies to preclude or >encourage almost any future process or change which would eventually force >ICANN or even worse, some regulatory authority like the USG or ITU to step >in and pick up the pieces. i don't even want to think where this could lead >us. > Ken, If proxy votes would be disallowed (on the Net, with members who are joining because of their interest in self-governing, who needs proxies?) would that persuade CORE to give up your resistance against a DN holder flat membership? Probably not, but I think it would persuade others. Your S&L abuse example is not persuasive, in the Internet context. >it is my personal interpretation from conversations with other CORE member >representatives that we feel that there has to be a balanced constituency >representation. > >just what balance and how to protect against abuses is a good part of what >all these meetings and the related process is all about. > For me , the logic remains that a very wide membership is the best protection , both against capture and against abuses. Constituencies that stack the vote in favor of those who already have considerable power due to their position in the industry, are sure to discourage very wide membership. I propose to modify the membership article with a clause that prohibits voting by proxy. --Joop-- http://www.democracy.org.nz/ __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
