Kent Crispin wrote:
> I'm sorry, Eric. You are misinformed. Izumi is correct: geographic
> diversity has been an absolute requirement from very early on,
By whom? I did not hear it required at Reston and am not aware of an IFWP poll on
the subject.
We do not know what process produced that geographic proposal, it just arrived on
our screens. There was certainly no consensus on this issue, as it was defined.
Indeed, I believe the consensus to be the other way if put to a vote, which I
recommend.
> and is
> a component of the White paper. We spent a great deal of time in the
> DNSO meetings discussing exactly this issue.
The DNSO is organizing itself, not ICANN.
> > > and, though I admit
> > > it is technically difficult to adopt with complex structure of SOs and
> > > at large members, the central principle should be well preserved.
> >
> > At what cost?
>
> At whatever cost it takes. It is a requirement.
First of all, we have not tried to accomplish such diversity in some manner which
does not frustrate all other values. Geographic diversity would be reflected to
the extent relevant under a proportional representation scheme, especially over
time. Indeed, it might be exaggerated with cumulative voting. And, dividing the
world into five hugh "quadrants" doesn't assure the kind of meaningful community
of interests necessary to justify a "regional" representation instead of divisions
based upon other criteria.
And, if the board made the "requirement," it can also change (or modify) that
requirement (as indeed, is proposed with the division of the world into 5 instead
of the current 4 regions). We can accomplish the elected board's initial
diversity through either cumulative or proportional voting and review the results
periodically to make sure it conforms with our actual consensus.
> > > Also please remember that many people who are not English native
> > > have been relatively quiet, but that does not mean that they all agree.
> >
> > Exactly the point. Just because you are from Japan does not make you the
> > better representative for a Japanese (or Indian or Australian) member of
> > ICNN than Onno Hovers or Jim Dixon.
>
> Tell that to the Japanese.
Ok, speaking only for myself. I would vote for Onno or Jim over a U.S. resident
whose views on the issues are less consistent with my own. The projection of my
attitudes in this regard upon residents of Japan may not have been appropriate.
