On Wed, Jan 13, 1999 at 01:10:12PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote: > 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. I don't think it would persuade CORE and I know it wouldn't persuade me. Proxy votes are only one problem, and not decisive, in my mind. [...] > 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. Constituencies and wide membership are actually orthogonal issues -- you can have wide membership and constituencies, narrow membership and constituencies, wide membership and no constituencies, and narrow membership and no constituencies. As I said before, constituencies are a method of preventing tyranny of the majority -- there are other alternatives, but they have been considered, and the minorities who stand the most to be affected prefer constituencies. Consider a flat membership model. Suppose there are 10000 members total. Someone proposes that all the expenses of the DNSO should be born solely by NSI. Under a flat membership model, 5001 votes carry the day. Arguably, this isn't fair to NSI. I personally think a "Bill of Rights" model that protects NSI in this case is the best solution. However, it isn't the solution preferred by the groups that have concerns -- eg registrars and registries. And it does have the problem of coming up with the appropriate Bill of Rights. Despite your bland assurances to the contrary, there is no doubt that a BoR in this situation is a difficult problem. It may very well be true that the arguments surrounding the crafting of such a document would make the present ones over representation look mild. [Because basically all the policy issues would have to be argued up front -- everyone would try to game the BoR so that their interests were completely protected.] Consider also that some constituencies, namely the registries and registrars, really are in a special relationship to ICANN in this -- they will be the ones most heavily impacted by by ICANN policies; they undoubtedly will be the ones under some form of legal obligation to ICANN. > I propose to modify the membership article with a clause that prohibits > voting by proxy. I agree that the proxy clauses should be examined very closely. -- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain __________________________________________________ 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____________________________________________
