On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 03:45:48PM -0500, Andrew McLaughlin wrote:
[...]
> [ This paragraph means that an individual cannot represent more than one
> [ organization that applies for membership in the NCDNHC. Every
> [ organization has to name as a representative different persons.
>
> Hmmmm. That seems unwise to me -- I would just leave it up to the
> noncommercial organizations to determine who the best representative of
> their interests is. A non-commercial membership association might
> choose a member who also works for a commercial entity.
That would be OK -- the commercial entity couldn't be a member of the
NCDNHC.
> If that's what
> the organization chooses, why not just let the organization's choice
> stand? Same principle might apply to organizations that choose the same
> person to be a representative. It seems more consistent with the
> principle of bottom-up organization to simply allow each non-commercial
> organization to make its own decision.
We had quite a debate in the PAB about this very issue -- Amadeu, in
fact, was representing two signatories of the gTLD-MoU, and the question
was whether he should get one vote or two. We decided he got one, and
that one of his organizations should choose another rep. The reason for
that was that decision making by rough consensus creates a strong
presumption that each voice is equal -- otherwise the quiet guy in the
back who represents 300 organizations always carries the day.
But the NCDNHC already makes a distinction between large organizations
and small ones, so perhaps that reasoning doesn't apply.
> Anyway, it's just my opinion. I don't see a conflict with the ICANN
> Bylaws, so it's not up to me to make a conclusion.
There are other effects that might have a bearing. It may be that the
"one representative" rule will reduce the incentive to create fake
organizations. Somebody can write a thesis about this in 5 years.
> [ > if every NC member had an alternate.
> [ Andrew, we are not naming six representatives for the Names Council. We
> [ are electing three members for the Names Council, but lets say that one of
> [ them have an illness and cannot vote in a specific NC meeting. Then such
> [ NC representative needs someone that vote. That's why such NC
> [ representatives needs an alternate: someone that votes in the name of NC
> [ representative. The alternate is a person which works closely with the NC
> [ representative but never acts in his/her self name. The act of an
> [ alternate in a specific meeting of the NC is always as if the NC
> [ representative itself is present in such meeting.
>
> This is a clear statement of the advantages of alternates, but it does
> not alter my conclusion that the ICANN Bylaws (as currently written)
> limit each constituency to no more than three officially designated
> representatives. There is a good reason behind that limitation -- the
> Names Council is intended to be a deliberative council of individuals,
> not a legislative committee of represented interests.
The "alternates" proposal is clearly geared to the idea of preserving
representational interests.
> The deliberative
> model (embodied in the Bylaws) is inconsistent with alternates. The NC
> is supposed to be a group of 19 individuals who work together to reach
> consensus on domain name issues; that goal is much more
> difficult if there are 38 individuals involved.
The current NC is already rather large. But it's not just a matter of
size. The "alternates" proposal is clearly geared to the idea of
preserving representational interests -- the primary reason articulated
for alternates is that the alternate will preserve the point of view of
the primary. But in my opinion that mindset will also multiply the
difficulty of reaching consensus in the NC.
Kent
-- 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 - 13:20:38 PDT