On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 12:31:49PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> In my opinion the effect of Kent's proposal is to disenfranchise the people
> who elected the original NC member.
>
> The fact is, people from different geographic regions often have different
> views on policy issues. That is why we have the geographic diversity
> requirements!
The whole purpose of the geographic diversity requirement is to foster
participation by ALL regions, while in your perverse view the purpose
seems to be to foster fiefdoms.
The "running-mates" proposal actually locks in representation on the NC
to the most populous regions. That is, in fact it works *against*
genuinely diverse geographic representation. Nii's proposal, on the
other hand, gives regions with smaller representation in the ncdnhc an
opportunity to participate in the NC proceedings.
> The GD requirements make it clear that, for example, someone from North
> American is unlikely to be the best representative for someone from Africa,
> and vice versa.
>
> Now, in Kent's proposal, if an elected NC member from North America is
> unable to attend a meeting, the people who elected that person will be
> represented by a person from Africa or Europe or whoever is next in line on
> the AdCom. It is possible that the people who elected the original NC member
> do not even know the alternate, have never met, and do not support his or
> her views.
Your view of the NC representatives, then, is that once they get
elected they forget the rest of the NCDNHC, and merely represent their
own region. The purpose of the ncdnhc, in your perverse view, is
simply as a tool for the more populated regions to get representation
on the NC.
In my view all the NC reps should have a fiduciary responsibility to
represent the ncdnhc as a whole. That is, Kathy doesn't go to the NC
and say, "I represent the North American geographical region". She
says instead "I represent non-commercial domain holders".
The whole point of the geographical diversity requirement is to be sure
that more populated regions don't lock in control. The "running-mates"
proposal is designed to circumvent that intent.
[...]
> This seems to be to be self-evidently undesirable. An alternate is supposed
> to be someone who stands in the place of the original NC rep and represents
> the views of the ELECTED person they are substituted for.
Nope. An alternate is supposed to represent, to the best of their
ability, the position of the CONSTITUENCY, just as the original NC
member is supposed to. Of course, we all have unconscious biases
towards our regions, but we have three reps instead of one to help
counteract that, and Nii's proposal furthers that end.
> We need to think a bit more carefully about the political situation here. If
> the Non-commercial constituency was a cohesive group of people who all knew
> each other and shared the same basic outlook, the AdCom-method of
> designating alternates would work. But we are not cohesive.
While we are not cohesive, it seems self evident that models that foster
cohesion are better than models that foster factionalization.
[...]
> Very well. If you want to preserve geographic representation on the NC, then
> you must vote for alternate method #1, which allows a geographical NC
> representative to select an alternate that supports their own views.
What a bizarre bit of doubletalk: Support diverse representation by
supporting a system that locks in the representatives of a single
region.
-- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain--- You are currently subscribed to ncdnhc-discuss as: Kent@SONGBIRD.COM To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1729M@lyris.isoc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:37 PDT