Re: [wg-review] Voting Rights

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Tue, Feb 06, 2001 at 11:35:47AM -0500, Babybows.com wrote:
> When I look at the current DNSO structural model, at the most rudimentary
> level I see two groups of participants... those who by dint of their
> contractual relationship with ICANN are obligated to adhere to "consensus
> policies", and those who have no such contractual relationship.  I question
> the wisdom of the former group having been granted "voting rights" in the
> Names Council,

Sorry, you have it backwards.  In any democracy, those who are governed
are the ones who should vote -- we have other names for systems where
you are governed but don't get a vote.  Those in contractual
relationships with ICANN are the ONLY ones directly "governed" by ICANN,
therefore, there is a strong argument that they are the only ones who
should have a vote.  The difficult argument is how to justify anyone 
else having a vote.

> as it would seem to me that "observer status" would be more
> appropriate.

That's simply a dictatorship: the entities being governed are relegated
to "observer" status, while those who have no obligations get to call
all the shots.  Does being a dictator have a special appeal for you?

> I also wonder why the GA doesn't have a large block of seats
> on the Names Council as that too, in my humble opinion, seems 
> appropriate. 

Because the GA is not a *body*, it is an *activity*, like a "school
assembly", as I described elsewhere. 

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html