Michael Sondow wrote:
>
> 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.
If that is the case, why are you concerned about whether the ICIIU is
eligible for ICANN membership? The ICIIU is free to urge others to join
ICANN regardless of its membership status, and those individuals are free to
join both ICANN and the NCDNHC if they so choose, since the proscription
aginst dual membership would apply only to organizations.
>
> > 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?
>
You objected to Principle 9 of the Membership Advisory Committee (not the
"board") recommendations. All this says is that each ICANN member will have
equal voting priveleges. That is the commonly understood meaning of "one
person, one vote".
To the extent that the MAC recommendations cover election procedures, it is
in Principle 15, which recommends "a method of cumulative voting by
electronic methods". The comment associated with it further suggests a
"preferentail type of procedure". IOW, the MAC agrees with you.
