Re: [kent@songbird.com: draft application]

[jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

Kent and all,

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 16, 1998 at 12:22:39AM -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> > Kent Crispin a écrit:
> > > Clarification: He is right about the DNSO electing NC members.  His
> > > second statement is, however, incorrect.  Concretely, imagine the At
> > > Large had 95% of the DNSO members.  According to his second
> > > statement, they could determine the entire NC membership.  But of
> > > course, they don't get to nominate candidates in the other
> > > constituencies, so their choices are limited.
> >
> > They may not nominate candidates in the other constitutencies, but they
> > could, by the force of their numbers, decide which candidates are
> > elected, and thus see to it that those are elected who favor their
> > policies.
>
> There may very well be *no* nominees that favor their policies --
> they can only vote for who is nominated, and there is no guarantee
> that they will get a nominee that favors their position.  Nominees in
> general will tend reflect the positions of the constituency that
> nominates them.

  If their are nominees that support an constituency's policies than there
must be a problem with the nomination process itself.  What is that
process in detail?

>
>
> [...]
>
> > > There is no perfect solution -- given enough money and evil, any
> > > system will fail.  Democracy only works if there are more good
> > > people than bad people.
> >
> > Why make it easier for a bad outcome and at the same time complicate the
> > election procedure? Why not just have each constituency choose its own
> > NC members? I can't see what the use is in having all DNSO members vote
> > for all candidates.
>
> You may well be right.  But there is a flip side you may not be
> considering: by having a scheme where all members vote on all
> candidates, you are more likely to get candidates that represent a
> broader point of view.  The scheme you propose is a recipe for
> Balkanization.

  Are you saying here Kent that if all members must approve any and
all nominees that that situation leads necessarily to Balkanization?  If
so, please describe how that would occur.


>
> >
> > It's not a matter of good and bad people. All people want to see the
> > things which are good for them come to pass. Those with the money,
> > power, and numbers to influence decisions in their favor will use those
> > things. There need to be mechanisms that offset these natural
> > tendencies. Limited candidacies and equal representation help. Majority
> > voting of the entire membership for all NC seats doesn't help.
>
> In my opinion it *does* help.  It obviously makes candidates more
> responsive to the concerns of the the *entire* DNSO, and less
> responsive to the concerns of narrow factions.  This mechanism
> provides an incentive for candidates to respond to the concerns of
> other constituencies than those that nominated them.  THIS IS A GOOD
> THING.

  Agreed!

>
>
> In fact, having the entire DNSO vote on all candidates is a mechanism
> to counteract the exact problem you descibe.  Think for a moment,
> will you: If the At Large is the largest, most diverse group, this
> mechanism will tend to make nominees from other constituencies
> consider the concerns of the At Large group far more than in the
> scheme you propose.

  Well not necessarily so if the other "Constituencies" are intractable
similar to what occurred during the failed gTLD-MoU initiative, as you well
know.

>
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair                         "Do good, and you'll be
> kent@songbird.com                               lonesome." -- Mark Twain

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208