----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Crispin" <kent@songbird.com>
> 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.
It does that, regardless of how we select alternates.
> 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.
It does that, regardless of how we select alternates.
> The geographical diversity requirement, in other words, provides
> protection against the "tyranny of the majority".
OK. Then I take it we will not select your AdCom method based on a 51% -49%
vote on this list. You wouldn't want to win that vote and become a
tyrannical majority, would you?
> The "alternates"
> proposal, on the other hand, reinforces the power of the majority.
It does not "reinforce" the power of the majority. It simply keeps it in
exactly the same place it was before. If the NC rep attends the meeting,
he/she gets to vote any way they like, right? And he/she holds that position
because he/she got more votes, right? The only thing we are discussing is
whether the Alternate at a meeting reflects the views of an elected NC or
one who was not elected.
> 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.
Your proposal is not asking for the right to block votes when you are
outnumbered. You are asking to take over the vote of an elected NC
representative. You want to have your cake and eat it, too: you want to have
majority powers with minority status. I think most people can see through
this.
> 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.
I think we're getting closer to the true motivations for your positions.
> And, as you point out, that is irrelevant. The real issue is
> enfranchisement of minority interests, whatever they may be.
No Kent. The real issue is how we select alternates. Please stop wasting our
time with the other stuff.
> "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.
Why don't we try to reach consensus, you and I, eh? Does your belief in a
"consensus-oriented regime extend to me?
> > 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.
Of course your positions should be taken into account. That is not the
issue. You seem to want more than that. You are demanding that you as a
small minority have the right to vote for the entire constituency. You would
replace the tyranny of the majority with the tyranny of the minority. You
would allow the NC rep to ignore the will of the most popular and broadly
respected NC members.
Obviously, the ideal is to have everyone work together in harmony. But we
can't agree on every issue all the time. So what do we do? We elect NC
representatives and delegate our voting power to them.
I suggest that you take your own advice, Kent. Be "consensus oriented." Vote
carefuly for NC representatives, try to vote for people who are
"consensus-oriented," and respect the top three elected representatives as
the people who give expression to the constituency consensus. If someone
acts against that consensus, vote against them next time. If you lose the
vote and the rest of the constituency elects someone you don't like, then
maybe it's time for you to change your position, in the name of "consensus."
Peace, love, and all that,
--MM
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:37 PDT