RE: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

Actually, this is why some of us are in favor of the GA getting it's own
vote on the NC and recognition by the ICANN BoD. I think that this is a good
bicameral model.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DPF [mailto:david@farrar.com]
> Sent: Thursday, December 28, 2000 8:22 PM
> To: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] 3. [Constituencies] Report requested by NC
> 
> 
> On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 13:19:58 -0800 (PST), Karl Auerbach wrote:
> 
> >> Karl, I respect your position, but is it realistic? 
> Individuals register
> >> with a particular party, not because they agree 100% with 
> all its views, but
> >> because on balance, it's position is the most agreeable, or because
> >> alternative choices are intensely disagreeable.
> >
> >I don't disagree - but remember that "the party" gets its power from
> >number of people who agree with its platform and vote their 
> individual
> >votes accordingly.
> 
> This is IMO an important point.  A constituency such as the
> non-commercial one could wither away to only five small organisations
> as members yet they still have the same votes as say the IP
> Constituency which has 8,672 lawyers as members.
> 
> Perhaps we should have two "chambers" - one which is equal votes per
> constituency (senate model) like the Names Council) and one which is
> votes are proportional to membership/support (house model).  One could
> argue the GA is the equivalent of the House but this then means that
> in this analogy you have a House with no powers at all and a Names
> Council with all the powers.
> 
> DPF
> ______________________________________________________________
> __________
> <david at farrar dot com>
> NZ Usenet FAQs - http://www.dpf.ac.nz/usenet/nz
> ICQ 29964527
>