At 22:17 12/01/99 -0800, Kent Crispin wrote:
>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.
>
Kent and all,
Arguably any majority decision may be unrfair. But at least it will be
known to be a majority decision, which is an argument in itself.
Why is it that you think individual members cannot make good and fair
decisions for themselves?
With consituencies, arguably 50 registries, 150 registrars and 10 TM
interests could outvote
1000 DN holders.
>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.
>
A BoR protecting NSI. :-)
I had not though of a Bill of Rights in those terms. This is why I asked
you to post your Montererrey Paper on a BoR, so that we can see what our
idea's of a BoR may have in common.
Could you please do it, Kent?
Or course a BoR is a difficult problem for those who do not like to concede
rights akin to property rights to DN holders.
Yet, investment in Web commerce demands that DN holders cannot be left to
the whims of registries.
If they cannot get representation, they will need a 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.]
>
Yes, everyone would try to secure what they could. But it is better to
discuss these rights up front than at a stage when the vested interests
have already rigged the structure of the DNSO in their favour.
>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.
>
So? Does this mean that they need a voting advantage over the DN holders
who are equally impacted by ICANN policies but who are even more impacted
by registries policies?
>> 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.
>
At least we agree on something. There is no need for proxies IMHO.
--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____________________________________________
