John B. Reynolds a �crit:
> you should get all of the members of the ICIIU to join ICANN.
I can't "get all of the members of the ICIIU to join ICANN" for the
simple reason that the ICIIU has no membership. The ICIIU was
founded on the principle that people who use the Internet should
represent themselves and have a responsibility to do so, and that
the Internet gives them the this ability.
For example, you did not join the ICIIU by sending me a form
expressing your desire to adhere to the NCDNHC. You merely took
advantage of a procedure the ICIIU set up for facilitating adherence
to a self-organizing group. You are not a member of the ICIIU and
owe the ICIIU nothing. Likewise, the ICIIU owes you nothing. You are
free to join the ICANN At-Large membership just like everyone else,
with or without the ICIIU, which does not speak for you nor tell you
what to do. The ICIIU asks people to think for themselves and hopes
that they will.
> How, then, would you structure the voting? You are already on record as
> opposing constituency-based representation, now you are also opposing
> at-large representation. What other alternative is there?
Where do you find anything in what I wrote to suggest that I oppose
at-large representation? Are you looking for a gratuitous argument
with me? If so, what do you gain from it?
What I have said, if you will take the trouble to read it, is that
there needs to be a voting mechanism - such as representational
voting, STV, a combination of the two, or at the very least nine
votes for nine board seats by each member. One man-one vote isn't
going to work, IMO. You agree with the board and think it will? I
think you're wrong. Your side has been expressed by the board. Now
I've expressed my side. Fair enough?
