I don't think it would persuade CORE and I know it wouldn't persuade
me. Proxy votes are only one problem, and not decisive, in my mind.
[...]
> For me , the logic remains that a very wide membership is the best
> protection , both against capture and against abuses.
> Constituencies that stack the vote in favor of those who already have
> considerable power due to their position in the industry, are sure to
> discourage very wide membership.
Constituencies and wide membership are actually orthogonal issues --
you can have wide membership and constituencies, narrow membership
and constituencies, wide membership and no constituencies, and
narrow membership and no constituencies.
As I said before, constituencies are a method of preventing tyranny
of the majority -- there are other alternatives, but they have been
considered, and the minorities who stand the most to be affected
prefer constituencies.
Consider a flat membership model. Suppose there are 10000 members
total. Someone proposes that all the expenses of the DNSO should be
born solely by NSI. Under a flat membership model, 5001 votes carry
the day. Arguably, this isn't fair to NSI.
I personally think a "Bill of Rights" model that protects NSI in this
case is the best solution. However, it isn't the solution preferred
by the groups that have concerns -- eg registrars and registries.
And it does have the problem of coming up with the appropriate Bill
of Rights.
Despite your bland assurances to the contrary, there is no doubt that
a BoR in this situation is a difficult problem. It may very well be
true that the arguments surrounding the crafting of such a document
would make the present ones over representation look mild. [Because
basically all the policy issues would have to be argued up front --
everyone would try to game the BoR so that their interests were
completely protected.]
Consider also that some constituencies, namely the registries and
registrars, really are in a special relationship to ICANN in this --
they will be the ones most heavily impacted by by ICANN policies;
they undoubtedly will be the ones under some form of legal
obligation to ICANN.
> I propose to modify the membership article with a clause that prohibits
> voting by proxy.
I agree that the proxy clauses should be examined very closely.
-- Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain