We support proposal 1
Carlos Vera
CORPECE
Ecuador
Kent Crispin wrote:
> 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: cvera@INTERACTIVE.NET.EC
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-ncdnhc-discuss-1712G@lyris.isoc.org
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Aug 09 2000 - 13:20:37 PDT