On Tue, Apr 27, 1999 at 12:32:45AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>At 8:27 PM -0400 4/26/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
>>>Seriously, this (plus many other similar postings, not picking on you
>>>Mikki!) makes me wonder: why bother with constituencies if everyone wants
>>>to join each one? (Yes, not each one, but most of them.....) I say this
>>>not in hostility, but in an effort to open a discussion. What is the purpose
>>>of the constituencies (other than to elect NC members)?
>>>
>>>FWIW, do you have time to be active in all of these? Does Jay Fenello? And
>>>get all your real work done too?
It's interesting to note that no reputable group or serious business
or organization is making noises about "joining every constituency".
Perhaps that is because the reputable groups have thought through the
issues, and realize that it is actually rather difficult to game the
system. Or it may be that legitimate organizations have real work
to do, and can't afford to spend time playing power games...
In fact, as long as 1) a constituency is reasonably open, 2) sets
reasonable membership requirements, and 3) has a reasonably large
membership, there is no significant danger of capture. In any
particular constituency, a member still only gets one vote -- not
enough to win an election, by a long shot. IBM, for example, might
legitimately join 3 constituencies, which means that it gets to cast
a single vote in three different elections. That is not capture, by
any measure -- not of the DNSO, not of the Names Council, not of any
individual constituency.
It is important, of course, that the above three conditions be met.
In particular, a constituency with a very small number of members is
susceptible to capture -- the gTLD constituency comes to mind as an
obvious example -- but as soon as there are a few dozen distinct
members to a constituency, capture will be difficult.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
