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

["Antony Van Couvering" <avc@interport.net>]

Ken,

I certainly was *not* referring to any proxy mechanism.  I was saying that
if groups were capable of "raising consciousness" to the point where they
could motivate their members to vote, that was great.  I was not saying that
that group could vote on behalf of its members.

Antony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-membership@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-membership@ISI.EDU]On
> Behalf Of Ken Stubbs
> Sent: Sunday, February 14, 1999 8:34 PM
> To: Antony Van Couvering; membership@icann.org; orsc; ifwp
> Cc: zittrain@law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective?
> And, how do we reach it?
>
>
> i need reassurance here.... promise me were not referring in any
> way to some
> sort of a proxy facilitation procedure here.
>
> this is still the same concern i share for the SO "membership" delineation
> problems ...
> when you see how difficult it is becoming to obtain "whois"
> information and
> how easy it would be for any registry to facilitate
> communication with it's
> registrants and how difficult it would be for anyone else to do
> the same...
> it get more and more concerned
>
> we need to insure that anyone who gets involved has a balanced set of
> perspectives presented to the to evaluation and that they are not
> "stampeded" into action..
>
> this is still the same concern i share for the SO "membership" delineation
> problems ...
>
> ken stubbs
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Antony Van Couvering <avc@interport.net>
> To: Jonathan Zittrain <zittrain@law.harvard.edu>; membership@icann.org
> <membership@icann.org>
> Date: Sunday, February 14, 1999 7:34 PM
> Subject: RE: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the
> objective? And,
> how do we reach it?
>
>
> >Jonathan,
> >
> >If the Democratic party manages to fire up enough voters to
> actually go to
> >the polls, and it thereby captures the majority in both legislative
> >chambers, should we then say that it had "rigged" the system?
> >
> >I think the analogy is apt.  Voters have to go through the
> inconvenience of
> >registering, of providing an address, and of actually going to the polls.
> >There is one vote per individual.  If the AARP manages to get all senior
> >citizens to go the polls, more power to them.
> >
> >The political process is much more likely to be damaged by
> interference and
> >lobbying with ICANN board members by powerful interests than it is to be
> >hurt by heavy voter turnout.
> >
> >And yes, we should STV voting or other proportional representation
> >vote-counting methods.
> >
> >Antony
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: owner-membership@ISI.EDU [mailto:owner-membership@ISI.EDU]On
> >> Behalf Of Jonathan Zittrain
> >> Sent: Saturday, February 13, 1999 8:06 PM
> >> To: membership@icann.org
> >> Subject: [Membership] Re: [IFWP] Is Nesson right on the objective? And,
> >> how do we reach it?
> >>
> >>
> >> Eric,
> >>
> >> 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
> >> >ourselves?
> >>
> >> 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 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?  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?
> >>
> >> >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
> >> >representation;
> >>
> >> 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?
> >>
> >> >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
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
>