>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Peter Veeck ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:12:30 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Wed Jul 14 01:12:29 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from regionalweb.texoma.web (veeck.org [209.151.111.2]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with SMTP id D7728F010 > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Wed, 14 Jul 1999 01:12:28 -0400 (EDT) >Received: from Regionalweb.Texoma.net (unverified [192.168.10.7]) by >regionalweb.texoma.web > (EMWAC SMTPRS 0.83) with SMTP id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:05:37 -0500 >Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Wed, 14 Jul 1999 00:03:23 -0500 >From: Peter Veeck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Organization: Texoma.WEB >X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (Win98; I) >X-Accept-Language: en >MIME-Version: 1.0 >To: Eric Weisberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Membership & supermajorities >References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii >Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit > >Just out of curiosity who is going to represent individual domain holders, >individual non-profit web operators or end users? Since I am over 55 and so are a >large number of web users perhaps I should see if AARP is interested. > >Peter Veeck >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >Eric Weisberg wrote: > >> Thanks for your thoughtful reply. >> >> Jon Zittrain wrote: >> >> > ...What worries me most is getting the >> > electorate to be representative in the first place. >> >> We know that commercial interests will be represented to the extent they are >> affected. The non-commercial enduser probably will not. But, that is a worse >> problem under head-to-head, single winner electoral systems. >> >> > Suppose the electorate >> > were simply the initial members of the ICANN board, or the attendees of the >> > July 1998 IFWP meeting. >> >> I haven't heard those seriously proposed. >> >> > No matter what scheme you use to weigh and tally >> > votes among them, it'd be hard to generate a satisfactory election, since >> > the electorate itself wouldn't approximate what we think of as "fair." >> >> Therefore, no elections? We have already assembled the likely members. ICANN >> is no secret. Anyone else with enough interest will figure out how to join, at >> least if we stay true to our no/low barrier philosophy. >> >> > To me, a fair electorate is one that's a good cross-section of the population >> > affected by the acts of whoever's elected. >> >> That is the ideal. >> >> > To others, a fair electorate is >> > seen as one for which any member of the affected population had an >> > opportunity to join--regardless of how many actually do join or exercise >> > their rights to vote. >> >> That is fair. But, as we have discussed, it may not produce fair results. That >> is being addressed with different mechanisms (such as the NCDH constituency and >> the GAC). >> >> > One way the MAC thought of to approach this was regional minimums, whether >> > absolute or relative, in the initial ICANN electorate: no election takes >> > place until at least n number of members from Africa, say, are signed >> > up. >> >> Was that thought voted up or down? I can't see any merit in this proposal. It >> is primarily a concern if we hold "regional" elections (the wisdom of which is >> under discussion). The geographic divisions are hugh and meaningless. >> Besides, how much is enough? And, what real harm is predicted if there is a >> gross disparity? >> >> > Some saw this as just another excuse to delay ("Gee, I guess there >> > isn't a quorum, so no election this month...") and others hated the idea of >> > dragging people in to sign up for something they wouldn't otherwise care >> > about. >> >> Recruitment won't result in significantly more voters or votes, especially over >> the long haul. >> >> > The danger is, if one allows membership to happen >> > organically--without serious outreach--the composition of the membership >> > may or may not be representative of the Internet at-large. >> >> We are discussing whether to have elections instead of what kind of elections to >> hold. Is that debate occurring at the board level, or just among the MAC and >> staff? >> >> > Where we >> > roughly came out was to collect cumulative demographic information about >> > members as they join, so there'd be some sense of whether the membership >> > was in the ballpark or not with respect to representation. >> >> That only tells you where members reside, not whether they are representative of >> the interests significantly affected. >> >> > A membership >> > with 1,000 members, 900 of which hail from the U.S., and 800 of which from >> > Washington, DC would be troublesome, at least to those who care about >> > representativeness. >> >> Again, you are only expressing concern about geographic representation. I want >> representation for all the other interests. >> >> > Some on this list don't fret about the internet user in the street having a >> > voice in ICANN--they believe that ICANN's members should comprise the elite >> > who actually know enough about what's going on (and care) to be able to >> > know one acronym from another. Others want extra power in the hands of >> > rank-and-file users, precisely because they can't be reasonably expected to >> > participate on the playing fields that the elite are using, even though >> > they're affected by the decisions. I've found that this disagreement is >> > often the real point of contention in arguments about membership and voting. >> >> Joe Enduser will have precious little interest in joining. What do you propose >> to remedy that "deficiency?" >> >> > Anyway, presuming a representative membership, cumulative or preferential >> > voting (i.e. "rank the candidates you prefer") seems best to me. >> >> How significant is this issue? >> >> > With preferential voting, I can simply tick off in order of preference my, >> > say, >> > five top candidates. >> >> If there are five seats to be filled? If there are two seats to be filled, >> would you get two votes? Or, is this a single winner mechanism? >> >> > If my first choice turns out to be in last place once >> > all the first-choice votes are counted, my vote is transferred to my >> > second-choice candidate. After that's done, whoever is in last place has >> > her votes transferred upward, etc., until only one candidate remains for >> > the seat. Thus my vote can "count" even if I initially "throw it away" on >> > a longshot candidate--thus encouraging me to vote for the longshot/minority >> > candidate if that's who I really favor. >> >> It sounds very interesting. Are all the calculations done by computer >> program? Was this mechanism discussed in the MAC? >> >> > Where do you see ICANN about to adopt simple majority, head-to-head, >> > winner-take-all elections? For the at-large board or elsewhere? >> >> The proposal, as I understand it, provides for single winner elections in five >> divisions of the globe and four "at large" elections staggered over three >> years, meaning that at least two will be single winner elections and the other >> two can be filled in single winner elections or a single contest in which the >> top two vote getters are elected. Sounds like simple majority, head-to-head, >> winner take all elections to me. >> >> Have you heard differently? >> >> Best regards. > > > -- Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
