[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Membership] In the interest of geography

Geographic interests are like every other interest you identify,
diverse.  Just because someone is from SE Asia doesn't mean she
represents everyone from SE Asia.  There are all kinds of
divisions which are more significant than such geographic lines. 
Those divisions are not best reflected by placing the
representative of a repressive dictatorship on the board just
because she is from the area in question. Rather, the goal of
fairly representing all interests, including those of areas which
are currently underserved, is achieved by allowing all to vote in
a system which will naturally apportion board positions according
to the real interests perceived by the various constituencies.

Thus far, there has been little discussion of systems designed to
accomplish that purpose.  I have pushed for the consideration of
one such system (based upon positive reports from groups which
have employed it)--STV.  Does anyone have a different approach to

Michael Sondow wrote:
> Joseph LeBaron a écrit:
> >
> > Esther wrote:
> >
> > But this [regional constituencies] ends up creating hierarchies....  With
> > addresses, regionalization
> > makes sense, reflecting routing patterns and the like, but I'm not sure we
> > want ICANN just to mimic geographical reality.
> >
> >
> >         I agree with Esther, at least in this case.  To the fullest extent
> > possible, ICANN should avoid a geographic orientation for its structure and
> > operation.  We are, after all, creating an organization for cyberspace.  Why
> > borrow the problems and limitations of the physical world, if we can
> > possible avoid it?
> I'll second that!