Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

["Mark C. Langston" <skritch@home.com>]

On 4 August 1999, "Bret A. Fausett" <baf@fausett.com> wrote:


>>I don't believe it is proper for those who don't vote to be counted as
>>"supporters" of a proposal.  Rather, I assert that those votes should be
>>counted either as abstaining or in opposition.
>
>By the same token, shouldn't there be a way for organizations (or 
>constituencies, for that matter) to make the views of their members known 
>without requiring each member to personally participate? And, if certain 
>criteria are met, an organizational vote might be weighted higher than an 
>individual vote, to better reflect the size of the organization's 
>membership.
>
>But, IMO, the organization/constituency shouldn't be allowed to say, 
>we're a 1000 members strong, and we vote for/against the proposal. Not 
>every organizational spokesperson speaks for the membership. 

Furthermore, this gets us into sticky issues like, "I speak for
Constituency X.  Constituency X is comprised of Y corporations/
organizations/representatives/lint-pickers.  The total membership
of all of these is in excess of Z.  Constituency X votes 'no', with the
weight of Z individuals."

It may sound improbable, but it happens a LOT.  For example, ISOC.

I might also point out that the ICANN bylaws require one elected
representative from every recognized constituency participate in a WG.
Those individuals would speak for the constituencies in the WG.  However,
any constituency member would also be allowed participation and a
vote.  In this instance, the constituency counts as one individual.
It simply allows the constituencies an "official" voice in the matter.

>
>  In commenting on any issue or proposal under consideration by the 
>  constituency, individuals may choose to identify their comments as 
>coming 
>  from an organization to which they belong. Such organizational comments 
>  may be used by the [the Working Group] to determine what weight to 
>  give a particular point of view. To assist [the Working Group] in 
>determining 
>  what weight organizational comments should be given, organizations are 
>  required to report (1) the specific steps, if any, by which they have 
>  polled their subordinate members on the question at issue and (2) the 
>  terms of any express grant to them by their membership of authority to 
>  state the member's views on the question at issue.
>
>I like this concept, but I throw it out for discussion. But Karl, I 
>understand that once you allow this kind of weighted voting (especially 
>allowing a WG to weigh votes), you're giving up the precision that comes 
>with one-person, one-vote systems. I just worry that limiting votes to 
>individuals will limit the universe of voters to those who have the 
>time/work authorization to participate.


Consider the alternative: Votes are weighted according to the size of
the constituency.  The largest constituency wins.  Constituency size
is to a certain extent self-limiting.  The registrars, the ccTLDs,
etc. would never be treated fairly, as they'd be outvoted in all
matters.  Also consider the fact that there's one group that has the
potential to win votes every single time if it can get enough members
(and if it's ever recognized), because its membership upper bound is
higher than any other constituency: IDNO.  As much as I might enjoy
entertaining this thought, that's not fair at all.  The NCDNHC could
claim that their vote should be weighted according to the memberships of
its membership.  That's not fair.  

One person (or organization), one vote.  Anyone who wishes to participate,
can.

-- 
Mark C. Langston	     			Let your voice be heard:
mark@bitshift.org				     http://www.idno.org
Systems Admin					    http://www.icann.org
San Jose, CA					     http://www.dnso.org