Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

[Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>]

On 2002-09-18 11:50:11 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>I was the one who actually suggested the idea of the minimum  
>threshold of 200 members for a Regional At Large Organization to  
>become accepted; it was intended as an instrument to force the  
>promoters of each RALO to actually do some outreach, rather than  
>simply sit there with a few friends and claim they represent the  
>Region. But it was never intended as a magic "democracy trial"  
>figure, because if you put it this way, strictly speaking, no  
>ICANN constituency will ever be representative unless we get to  
>the point to have to keep ICANN meetings inside stadiums :-)

It should be noticed that the blueprint puts much weight into the  
notion of having "delegates" instead of "representatives"  
throughout ICANN bodies.  From that point of view, a low threshold  
is a relatively small problem.

I'm afraid that the IPC's criticism falls into the category of  
killing the good (and feasible) because it's not perfect.  Of course 
it's always possible to come up with representativity criteria which 
will fail with everything except general, global elections, with 50% 
participation of the world's population.  I don't think anyone  
should be fooled by this argument.

Let's go for the feasible, even if it's not perfect.

-- 
Thomas Roessler                        http://log.does-not-exist.INFO/
--
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