<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] an ISC
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@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
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|