Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

[Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>]

> >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.

As you know, I consider mixing organizations and people as something that
is very bad.  It essentially gives organizations a vote size that is based
on someone's arbitrary guess as to the size of the organization.

That gives an enormous power to whoever it is that makes that guess.

And organizational votes are based on the assumption that all of the
organization's members would speak with one voice.

Plus there is the fact that organizational votes multiply the votes of a
person who is a member of multiple organizations.

People, individual people, are the atomic unit of voting.

We don't have corporate or organizational votes for Congress or the
President of the United States.  Indeed, I know of no country that allows
any but flesh-and-bone people to vote for governmental bodies.

If an organization wants to vote, then let it say to its members "go out
and join the working group".

That way we don't have to make any assumptions about the size of the
organization, test for overlapping memberships between organizations, or
inquire as to the diversity of opinion within an organization.

Organizations come and go, but giving an organization a vote ossifies the
weight and power of that organization whether that weight or power remains
true or not.

By saying "voting is for individuals only" we allow organizations to
express their power by allowing them to encourage their members to vote
along their party lines.

If the members chose to do so, then the organization has its voice.

If the members chose to ignore the call to vote or don't vote along the
party line, then the organizations voice is weak, as it should be.


> Here's some language, borrowed from an early version of the Paris Draft 
> and modified for another purpose later, that may be helpful to give you 
> an idea of what, I think, might be an acceptable balance between 
> individual and organizational interests:
> 
>   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.

I have no objection to comments from organizations.  In fact
organizational comments are often well thought out and well expressed.

Nor do I have any objection to people at meetings or in conversations
wearing a clear organizational hat.  In fact, it is good to know for whom
one speaks.

My objection is merely to votes being given to organizations.


> 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...

Shouldn't the weight of a comment be based on the content of that comment
rather than who makes it?



> 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.

I don't object to organizations, only to organizations having votes.

Clearly, any group of people with a common interest can form an
organization (or "party") and produce a coordinated position or platform.

But just as is done in the US (and in other countries) that platform is
manifested through individual votes, not by a vote by the
organization/party itself.

Certainly if an organization is large enough and has an interest it can
convince some portion of its members to participate and cast their
individual votes.

Since we are talking about electronic voting, we don't have the necessity
of an organization paying vast sums to get many people into personal
attendence at voting sites.

And remember I'm not excluding organizational comments or even
organizational representatives, only organizational votes.  (And I might
mention that the organizational representatives, as individuals, can
vote.)

And the kicker, to me anyway, is that the Names Council is the exclusive
preserve of organizations, and even if the IDNO were recognized, it would
still be overwhelming (8/9) the preserve of organizations.

		--karl--