[ga] an ISC

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 10:14 a.m. 17/05/2002 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>[bret]
> > are making informed choices. I don't believe that small, relative sample
> > sizes necessarily preclude ICANN from making informed choices.
>[KC]
>It does, however, preclude decision making by majority rule, or any
>surrogate thereof.

So, what is the sample size that ICANN would be satisfied with?  400?
Among equal individuals, anything *but* majority rule would be minority 
hijacking.

Majority rule can be as simple as the regular (every 3 months?) 
ratification via membership vote of what the leadership is up to or as 
complex as referring every major decision to a membership vote.
Brent is right: by the fruits you recognize the tree.  The pretenders show 
their true interests in the long run.
<snip>

>Proposal:
>
>Take the current GA apparatus (mailing list, voting registry, etc) and
>clone it.

  An ISC would need an idependent and anonymous voting system, not a clone 
of the GA system. It would also need independent scrutineers.


>Name it the "individual stakeholders constituency" (ISC), and
>seed it with the "membership" of the GA.  Give it 6 months to a year to
>come up with a charter approved by ICANN, and give it 3 votes on the
>Names Council when (if) that charter gets approved,

No. The deadline for Charter approval should be a fixed one, like the 6 
months membership. No open -ended obligation that can be dragged out for 
another 3 years, while the concrete sets around our individual feet.

As for seeding it with the whole membership of the GA. (incl. those 
constituency members who are only subscribed to announce lists) , the 
Individuals  would start off with a whole lot of corporate dilution.

>and that the
>constituency dues can be paid.  Let the DNSO secretariate support it,
>at least for the time being.

A budget allocation of 2 years, fixed. Extendable thereafter.


>The current GA can continue as it was originally designe: a
>cross-constituency forum; people can join or drop from the ISC as they
>see fit,

But they cannot call for a vote any more? Or can they?

>but in my opinion there should not be any restrictions on
>membership in the ISC,

or on the old GA

>other than that the member be able to establish
>that they are a real human being, and that they pay dues as required.
>(In particular, participation in another constituency in any capacity
>should not be a restriction on participation in the ISC in any
>capacity, except that a person can only be elected to the NC once.)

...which will guarantee a potential to hold them hostage in an IDNO style 
paralysis, especially when mailing lists are the sole means of 
self-organizing and charter-writing. (GA clone)


Your proposal contains positive elements  only if it is made in thoroughly 
good faith.


--Joop

--
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