[Membership] Re:Is Nesson right on the objective? And, how do we reach it?

[Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net>]

Joop Teernstra wrote:


> If we build constituencies in the structure, like was done in
> the Lebanese constitution, we set ICANN up for civil war.

This argues for a "dynamic" mechanism for allocating seats among
interests rather than a "static" allocation.

> >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.

This is an appropriate concern.   We have discussed a "public
interest SO" for this purpose. Government representation might be
another. How else might it be reasonably accomplished?

> >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?  

Capture, of course.  So, what mechanisms address this concern?

> If we don't slice up our voting members in any way,
> proportionality does not come into the picture.

I agree and disagree.  
I agree that we should not slice up our membership in any way.
But, I disagree about whether we want proportionality in the
picture.  

"Proportionality" is just another term for "reflection of our
membership's varied interests."  Do you oppose such result in the
election process we select?  Are you against proportionate
representation?
> 

> This problem can only be solved by not giving anyone the chance
> to etch a "membership structure" in stone, not at any time.
> If the membership remains unstructured, parties and factions
> will form and elections will only reflect the (temporary)
> popularity of people and platforms.

Well said.