Re: [ga] Determining a "Valid Consensus"

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Patrick and all remaining assembly members,

Patrick Corliss wrote:

> On Tuesday, March 27, 2001 12:41 AM (AEST)
> Bruce James <bmjames@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > A valid consensus can only be determined based on those that participate.
> > Those who choose not to voice an opinion/vote do so at their own risk.
> >
> > American voting history shows that in a given public vote on a local issue a
> > 5% to 10% turnout of voters happens. A sad fact of voter apathy. This group
> > is no different.
>
> Hi Bruce
>
> In Australia it is well-known that there is compulsory voting in that there are
> reasonably heavy penalties for anyone on the electoral roll who doesn't vote.
> This seems like a generally "good idea" to most of the electorate.

  Agreed.   This sort of thing should be done within the ICANN Process.
I seriously doubt that this will happen however....

>
>
> In fact, it distorts the system in other ways.  There are unanticipated side
> effects which I do not really need to go into right now.  However, I'll make a
> couple of points.
>
> One is the high rate of spoilt ballots papers.  Voters will often just write
> offensive words or vote in unapproved ways (with ticks instead of crosses for
> example).  A second is the difficulty that the Electoral Office has in
> maintaining the register.  Many of the citizenry avoid getting their name on the
> electoral roll in the first place as they can't be penalised if they are not on
> the electoral roll.  You then end up with a real "silent majority" who cannot
> even be targetted by the political groups.
>
> But what I think is more important is that most voters will vote for their
> preferred political party in the same way, year in year out.  As the country is
> divided into constituencies political parties can easily recognise so-called
> "safe seats".  These loyal seats get ignored by everybody.  All politicians
> simply target the "marginals" especially those where a small swing is needed to
> change the seat's status.
>
> Where people have the choice of not participating, the political process is most
> interesting.  First there is the challenge to target everybody (just to get them
> to vote) then there is the need to persuade them which way to vote.
>
> With mailing lists, some people do more work than others.  That's human nature.
> As well some people will pick and choose the issues.  Some, for example, only
> got involved with the ORG part of the discussion.  Others might take a "meta"
> view and monitor the way the debate is going.  If the debate reflects their
> views anyway, there is no need to get actively involved.  It doesn't mean they
> are not interested.  That's why the "straw poll" is so necessary -- it gets a
> good sense of the numbers.
>
> Australia also has a system of "proportional representation" which allows
> minority views to have an influence.  There really is no point in participating
> in the process if you are always going to be outvoted.  That's what causes
> minorities, like the Basque separatists in Spain, to take direct, often violent,
> action.  In that case, at least it is certainly not because of voter apathy.
>
> Some people, therefore, are more interested in making sure that the system
> itself is functioning properly to reflect a "valid consensus".  The fact that
> there are, what?, 291 people with a DNSO vote shows that there are much deeper
> problems.  The push for an Individual Domain Name Owners constituency, for
> example, reflects the need to get more people involved.

  The current chair and co-chair have done more to discourage and really
prevent other interested parties to participate within the DNSO through
selective censorship.  This has been a documented part of the DNSO and
ICANN historical record now.  As such, gaining additional participation
has been and by the illegitimate current DNSO rules, will continue to be
thwarted or blocked in some way or another...

>
>
> In fact, it is my view that modern politicians treat the population as composed
> of so many "virtual" constituencies.  They target "women", "African-Americans",
> "Hispanics", "the middle-class", "blue-collar workers", "students", "senior
> citizens", etc as individual virtual constituencies.  Apathy on some issues is
> then replaced by intense interest in relation to issues of direct personal
> concern.
>
> With electronic voting becoming common, I see more "straw polls" being
> conducted.  Politicians are becoming more capable of satisfying the needs of
> each virtual constituency in a way that starts to become truly democratic.  Then
> you have cross-constituency membership.  A "woman" may be both a "student" and
> "middle class" as well as being "African-American".  Any politician who can
> satisfy all of her needs is truly taking a participative approach.  And I like
> it.
>
> That's why I'd like to see the present "physical" constituency structure of the
> DNSO revised and made "virtual".  Of course, there must be constituencies but
> these should be flexible.  Individuals, small businesses, major corporates,
> registrars, countries, ISPs and other service providers, all need to be
> represented.  Clearly some of these groups cross constituency boundaries.

  Also clearly many within these and other groups are NOT represented
and have been blocked form participating actively.

>
>
> I truly expect this particular debate to become the most challenging in the
> modern world.  Perhaps it should start here in the DNSO General Assembly.

  It has been discussed, debated on several occasions if you recall, Patrick.
The result is the same.  If the ICANN BoD does not want these groups,
individuals or organizations to participate, they simply "Create" a rule
preventing their participation.  Hardly an open process...

>
>
> Regards
> Patrick Corliss
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 118k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1800 x1894 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html