Re: [ga] IPC on ALAC

["Jeanette Hofmann" <jeanette@wz-berlin.de>]

On 17 Sep 2002, at 22:59, kent@songbird.com wrote:


> > "The report seems to suggest that a regional at-large structure with as few 
> > as 200 individual members could be accredited to exercise responsibilities 
> > including direct appointment of a member of the Nominating Committee.  This 
> > number appears far too low to justify a claim of representativeness of the 
> > range of "individual Internet users" from any region, and certainly from 
> > regions in which there are tens or hundreds of millions of such Internet 
> > users."
> > http://forum.icann.org/reform-comments/alacag/pdf00000.pdf
> > 
> > As of March 2002, the IPC had only 66 members.
> 
> Your comparision is completely off base.  Most of the IPC members are
> not individual members, but rather are organizational members which
> collectively represents tens of thousands of members.
> 
> I know you know this.  Why do you deliberately make such a 
> misrepresentation? 

The IPC with its 66 members representing "tens of thousands of members" is as 
unrepresentative as any other club on the Net. 
The concept of representativeness the IPC report is referring to does not and will never 
work on the Internet. Only electorates with enumerable citizens can generate 
representative bodies. Internet users are not countable. Thus, an At Large membership can 
never be representative "of the range of individual Internet users". 

I assume the IPC is aware of this. Why then does the IPC repeat this misconception again 
and again? 

jeanette
> 
> 
> --
> 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
> 


--
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