Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies]

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Milton,
your analysis is good except on one point:

On 18:27 29/12/00, Milton Mueller said:
>Just do the political arithmetic.

The whole game of your opponents is to make you believe that you vote a 
consensus. Then they entrap you into political arithmetics.

You do not vote a consensus, you defeat a consensus. You do not a voice, 
you have a veto. So, alone you may block everyone.

What they do is to gather people for a consensus so only a few concerned 
peole come (why millions to say the same thing?). Then they call for 
...  democracy and votes. To trick you in they tell you you will have a 
vote/seat and the other not.

If you are hurt be a possible ICANN decision: whatever the constituency you 
come in: BC, GA, INDH, sTLD, gTLD, ccTLD, TL etc... you should be able to 
say "no" and (unless people show you wrong or irresponsible) this a final 
"no". In their way you may say "no" on behalf of millions who have the same 
objection, you will be defeated by a few not sharing your interests.

The DNSO is to be an open NC gathering the Chairs of "constituencies" (as 
such the work is wrong for different forms of closed or open centers of 
interests), accepted/disaccepted on a yearly basis by the GA. FYI I do not 
care being represented at the DNSO by only one person on a million if I 
know that when he says "no" this is a final "no".

Today there are obviously serious objections to the bylaws defined 
constituencies, hence no consensus. Therefore an alternative must be found 
permitting a consensus. Maintaining the constituency system in its present 
form is an obvious abuse of the worst "democratic tyranny" since the 
tyranny of a clever minority.

Jefsey