Re: [Membership] Re: Divide and rule by geography or language

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 07:34 31/01/99 -0500, Diane Cabell wrote:
>
>
>Joop Teernstra wrote:
<snip>
>> But what prevents the MAC to come with a recommendation for an amendment
>> that will allow at large members to vote freely for whomever they like, in
>> any geographic division
>
>I don't think it's clearly erroneous to chose this method, athough it has
serious
>weaknesses and is a compromise solution.  It is one way to protect
minorities who
>would otherwise never have a large enough constituency to elect their own
>representative.  Certain regions are minorities at present in terms of the
number
>of their citizens who are online.  That will change over time, perhaps,
but if I
>were making decisions which affected those regions, I would want their
input. If
>I were a citizen of those regions, I would want a voice.
>
Diane ,

I agree with the spirit of what you say. I just would like to make sure
that the voting options for those from the area's with guaranteed board
representation are not limited to "their own" Board nominees only.
They should be able to send clear signals in favour of policies that
transcend regional issues, by being able to nominate or vote for candidates
from outside their region if they are not happy with what the nomination
process within the region would throw up. 
Yes, I am thinking of issues of elites, corruption and favouritism of self
selected cliques.
As we face the same problem with the 3 directors nominated by the SO's, the
whole geographic allocation requirement comes under strain.

>The Net is growing so fast, this doesn't seem a good time (in my personal
>opinion) to entrench the communities that are ahead of the rest.  

Agreed. You are laying down a structure not just for today, but for the
future.
The most flexible way to ensure that Net governance stays attuned with
reality is not to try to impose *any* artificial restraint or preference.
ICANN's highest priority is making sure that entrenched *commercial
interests* will not prevent newcomers to compete on a level playing field.
The communities, the U.N. of cyberspace if you will, can evolve as they see
fit. I favour that they are allowed to grow naturally within the at-large
membership. Capable Board nominees can still emerge from this process and
North American members should be equally free to give them their vote. 

ICANN is to be a global organisation, not an organisation of regional
communities. 
Regionalism will dissipate its energies.
If the article mandating regional division of the membership cannot be
scrapped, it should be weakened by amendments as much as possible. 


--Joop--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/