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

[Membership] Re: [IFWP] "Organic/dynamic" self-forming constituencies?

>> Let people and entities form whatever coalitions they desire, let them
>> mutate and reform as conditions change.  Let those coalitions express
>> their power via the number of individuals that they can convince to
>> cast their votes in accord with the coalition's point of view.
> But, how do you accomplish a "dynamic" system in which new
> coalitions/constituencies form to address whatever happen to be the
> issues of the times?

I figure that people and entities would simply aggregate, as they normally
do, when a common interest is perceived.

No special mechanisms are needed.  This sort of thing is something that
people and entities have done for thousands of years.  This is the core
fact of "self organization".

I also believe that such aggregations would erode as the perception of
common interest fades.

> Does this imply "proportional representation" with all seats filled at
> each election?  Or, are there other ways of attaining such objectives
> such as Joop's proposal <http://www.democracy.org.nz/model.html> or by
> cumulative, "approval" or "rational" voting mechanisms discussed in
> sec.  5.8.5 of the MAC report
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/prelim.html#Method>?

To me, there is no "proportional representation".  Indeed there is no
"representation" -- rather, people vote directly in accordance with they
believe is the right thing to do.

Cumulative or STV voting mechanism *do* come into play when there are
multiple seats up for election.  But that would be true regardless whether
we had formalized "constituencies" or voting by individual.

> How do such alternatives measure against defined "constituency" plans
> in resisting "capture?"

It seems to me that a pre-defined constituency plan is more readily
captured.  In those cases one merely needs to gain control of
constituencies with big built-in votes.

And I might mention that with pre-defined constituencies, one need not
capture the "membership" of that constituency, only its management that
speaks with the voice of the contituency whether the membership agrees or

> Finally, would such a system for electing (some part of) the board
> affect ICANN's ability to use the "deliberative council" or randomly
> chosen "jury" mechanism suggested by Dr. Fishkin
> <http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/rcs/fish.html>?

No.  But it is ain interesting question as to what form the units of
random selection -- individual people or pre-defined constituencies.

> Frankly, I am concerned by the lack of discussion of such
> issues in the PUBLIC fora.

Agreed.  There seems to have been a major leap in the presumed acceptance
of the DNSO's concept of pre-defined constituencies.