[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?
Jonathan and all,
Good points here Jonathan. See more of our comments below.
Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> At 05:36 PM 2/13/99 , Eric Weisberg wrote:
> >I agree that "design against capture" should be a primary
> >objective. Do we have consensus on that? Do we need to poll
> Yes, though I've come to believe that people have different ideas about
> capture: a non-captured membership might be thought to be one that happens
> to balance among different active self-identified constituencies. But many
> want ICANN to respond to the interests of those not inclined or aware
> enough to be members, people whose own views and interests aren't reflected
> proportionately by the more active constituencies.
If their groups that are not reflected proportionately, they ar either a
group, or have not done a proper job of organizing themselves. As such,
either way, they cannot expect to receive any more representation than they
themselves choose to provide for themselves.
> If a single entity,
> through a noisy campaign, manages to sign up a bunch (indeed, a large
> majority) of members to advance candidates with that interest's policies in
> mind, and those who might be opposed indifferently don't even sign up, is
> the resulting landslide for the entity a just desert earned by the sweat of
> the brow or an example of capture?
No it would not be an example of capture as you define or suggest here.
> I mean, if you're populating the FCC,
> would you want it to be selected by a "membership" of cable, TV, telephone
> and radio interests (with the public at large not opting to participate),
> or some other way?
No I would not. But if I along with others did not self organize opposition
that was strong in numbers than I have not properly organized and therefore
cannot expect to have a significant position of standing in the decision
making process of any significant nature.
> >As a matter of simultaneous discussion, I propose that the best
> >way to lessen the likelihood of capture is to maximize the number
> >and diversity of interests on the board through proportionate
> I've probably missed it amidst the sea of list emails and announcements; do
> you have a particular "single transferable vote" proposal and description
> up anywhere?
> >electing all seats at the same time;
> I'd worry that this could be worse than a three-at-a-time replacement--a
> single "captured" electorate (imagine a bunch of last-minute registrations
> thanks to an intense membership sign-up and voting drive by a single
> interest) could replace the whole at-large half of the board in one swoop, no?
Yes it could, and it would be justified if the previous board, as we are
currently seeing with the Interim board now, did not adequately reflect the
needs of the hither to fore, silent majority, and that majority should suddenly
decide that its interests were not being considered adequately in the
> >and requiring
> >super-majority votes for decisions affecting the fundamental
> >aspects of our relationship.
> That sounds right--along with, perhaps, sunset/sunrise provisions that
> don't etch a given membership structure in stone until it bears out in
> practice what the consensus thinks will happen (or not happen) in theory.
> The problem--who would be in the right position to decide whether the given
> structure has succeeded or not? (The directors elected by it?) ...JZ
To solve this problem is relatively simple. The members would have an
opportunity to determine if it's own policies or positions on any structure
were successful and if necessary have the ability to change them
through a review process by suggested changes from that membership.
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208