Re: [wg-d] WG Principles

["Peter R. Rony" <rony@usit.net>]

I agree with Karl's reasoning.   The key point that Karl makes is:

>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.
>

So I ask, Why should any organization have a weighted vote in ICANN?  People are far more important than organizations, and far more important than ICANN. We, the people, should decide on policy matters.  

I do not understand why some people have trouble with the policy that "individual people are the atomic unit of voting".  


At 12:50 04/08/1999 -0700, you 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.
>
>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--
>
>
>
>
>