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

[Comment-Geo] Re: [IFWP] Comment on Geographic Diversity Policy

There are many interests to be represented, as Mr. Sondow points out.  IMHO,
however, none of them overrides the very necessary protection for Internet
access that geographic diversity offers the rest of the world.  Here is my
reasoning, which is somewhat different from Izumi's.

First: Special issue interest groups are not necessarily more valid than
regional interest groups.  This might not be true on all occasions, of
course, but as a general matter, "Users Who Want to Ban Privacy Protocols"
do not seem more deserving of a seat on the Board than "Users from Africa."
Issues can come and go much more rapidly than elections and candidates who
campaign on single issues would not necessarily be better suited to
represent different Users on other issues.

Secondly: I cannot see any way that a 9-member at-large delegation in a
large organization is ever going to seat minority interests;  it will simply
require too many votes to elect any one of the representatives.  "Users"
live in all geographic regions, however, so the general User will not be any
less well represented by the diversity requirement, unless by unproportional
limitations.   The only method I've seen that would result in true
representation of all Users on *issues* (in proportion to their actual
beliefs) would be by some polling mechanism whereby such opinion can be
solicited on an issue-by-issue basis.  I would like to see this established.

Thirdly: IMHO, it is not the purpose of the At-large to provide Board seats
for representatives of interest groups; its purpose is to ensure fair and
reasonable procedures for the coordination of names, numbers and protocol
parameters.  Therefore one wishes to *avoid* capture by interest groups (by
which I mean to prevent an interest from having influence beyond the number
of users who actually subscribe to its thesis).  I am, however, concerned
about regional caps; I think they are inconsistent with proportional
representation of general Users.  This is why I would personally rather let
all 4 of the non-designated at-large seats (after each region has seated
one) be selected without regard to regional representation.  I think ICANN's
latest proposal on diversity still needs some tweaking on that point.

Diane Cabell

Izumi AIZU wrote:

> I have little time to read the thread here, so please correct me if
> I misunderstand the context.
> But I want to state that the geographic diversity has been very much
> the consensus from last year's IFWP process, and, though I admit
> it is technically difficult to adopt with complex structure of SOs and
> at large members, the central principle should be well preserved.
> I think this is very much the core of 'fair, open and global' nature
> that White Paper (unlike Green Paper) called, and many people
> like us, outside North America, say from Asia and Pacific, Latin America
> and Afirca are trying to implement.
> Also please remember that many people who are not English native
> have been relatively quiet, but that does not mean that they all agree.
> Sometimes it costs too much time to participate these online
> discussions while making living locally.
> thank you for your understanding, and see you in Berlin!
> izumi
> At 15:52 99/5/21 -0400, you wrote:
> > The ICIIU objects to the proposed geographic diversity policy. To
> > begin with, it doesn't appear to be the consensus of opinion from
> > the many discussions that have taken place about it on the open
> > lists. Then, it will, as Eric Weisberg correctly pointed out,
> > supersede all other criteria for At-Large board members and
> > effectively reduce representation of interest groups to zero.
> > Lastly, it appears very much like a mechanism for eliminating user
> > representation even from the At-Large membership.
> >
> > The ICIIU requests that the board not make any decisions of its own
> > on geographic diversity policy, and that they leave it up to the
> > Internet community to decide.
> >
> > ============================================================
> > International Congress of Independent Internet Users (ICIIU)
> >         http://www.iciiu.org       iciiu@iciiu.org
> > ============================================================