Re: [ga] RE: DNSO Constituency Structure

[Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca>]

Roeland Meyer wrote:
> 
> I tend to agree with Patrick Greenwell. But, that is the essence of why I
> have been insisting on a voting/polling system for the past year. Not only
> that, but the "consensus" system has been much abused.

Yes, indeed.

> It has very poor protection against dishonest people and bad actors.

I'm not convinced that the problems are inherent in the consensus system.

Open (and archived) discussions provide potent weapons for both sides
in any battle, but I'm convinced the honest ones can win. 

I think we currently have the worst of both worlds -- a system that
claims to be "bottom-up" and "consensus-based" but does not achieve
either of those goals and provides excuses for those who want to prevent
appropriate representation of other interests. 

Also, we have various attempts to define consensus in some bogus way
like such-and-such a percentage in a vote, or to construct something
you can call consensus out of thin air.

Besides, the system is not supposed to run entirely by consensus. The
Board uses votes, and that would be fine if the board were appropriately
constituted. We don't need a polling system here anything like as much
as we need nine elected At Large board members actually seated. 

> That is essentially why US Congress doesn't use it, it has no credibility.

The trouble with voting and polls is that the people doing the voting here
aren't representative. In a congress or parliament you have at least an
attempt at that -- each member represents some specific group of voters 
and there's some attempt at fairness, whether equal population in each 
riding or a proportional representation system or two senators per state
or ... 

If a measure achieves a majority in Congress, there's at least some hope
that the voting bears some relation to the will of the people. If not,
perhaps you can throw them out next election.

Here you cannot tell who anyone represents. Some have credible claims
based on elections, e.g. Karl, but those elections can certainly be
criticised. Other claims are far more nebulous. Does Joop speak for
domain name owners? Danny for dot commoners? Jeff for thousands of 
people? Others for their companies, or industries, or parts of the 
domain business? 

Who am I speaking for? I certainly hope it's not only for myself, that
I'm working toward the good of the whole community, but I cannot claim 
to represent anyone.

Given that, it becomes not at all clear what any vote here means.
There is, as far as I can see, no reason to imagine that something 
that achieves a majority in the GA has broad support among users
or any other relevant group.
--
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