On Sun, Jan 30, 2000 at 08:22:52PM -0500, Milton Mueller wrote:
> The issue is not the region that the elected NC member comes from. The point
> is that that person was elected by a greater number of NCDNHC members than
> the 2 additional people on the AdCom.
Obviously, your are totally missing the point of the geographical
diversity requirement. It is SUPPOSED to help minority positions get
MORE than their numerically computed share of representation. That is
the entire intent. It is *supposed* to counter the "will of the
majority" by giving regions represented by a minority of participants a
compensating guaranteed representation.
The geographical diversity requirement, in other words, provides
protection against the "tyranny of the majority". The "alternates"
proposal, on the other hand, reinforces the power of the majority.
> The point is also that the 5 people
> elected to the AdCom do not necessarily have the same views.
Indeed. They almost certainly will not. However, the ICANN structure
is supposed to work by "rough consensus", not by the rule of the bare
majority. A "rough consensus" regime basically gives veto powers to
relatively small blocks. Concretely, Kathy tried to run through a
position paper that favored large numbers of new gTLDs, but that
failed, because there is a legitimated position within the NCDNHC that
questions that stance.
> Again, this
> difference of opinion may have nothing to do with region they come from.
And, as you point out, that is irrelevant. The real issue is
enfranchisement of minority interests, whatever they may be. The
"alternates" proposal enhances the power of the majority, regardless of
regional issues.
But in a consensus oriented regime, that is precisely what you don't
want.
> Here is an example of what I am concerned about. Suppose Kent and Dany are
> both running for NC. I cast my vote for Dany. Let's say Dany gets 100 votes
> and comes in first place, and Kent gets 20 votes and comes in 4th. Now, I
> and 100 members are happy with Dany as our representative. We voted for him.
> But if Dany cannot make a meeting, you are saying that Kent will be my NC
> representative. That will make me and probably 100 other members very
> unhappy. Our new NC rep has only the support of 20 members, and does not
> reflect our views.
If I represent a significant minority, our NC rep should indeed be
taking my position into account. THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN. We
*don't* want our NC reps ignoring minority interests.
-- 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