Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 10, 1999 at 11:36:34AM -0800, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
>
> At last, an intelligent comment! Thank you!
> [...]
> >
> > A question: What in your opinion would constitute demonstration of "legal
> > identity" keeping in mind the global nature of the organization?
>
> A very good question.
>
> Remember that this is a requirement for membership; that doesn't
> mean that every member must be checked in detail -- it means that if
> there is doubt (because of a complaint, or an obviously questionable
> case), some form of proof can be requested.
This is fine as long as that "Other Information Requested" is spelled
out in detail as part of a membership agreement and it does not violate any
organizations right to privacy.
> There is a "membership
> committee" that deals with such questionable cases. [The Names
> Council has this role in the MTY draft; but a membership committee
> is a better idea, I think]. The membership committee makes the
> judgement calls in difficult cases.
We agree with this idea, in principal. It should also be noted that
this "Membership COmmittee" must either be selected form the at-large
membership at random or by vote of the At-Large membership in order
to avoid problems of nepotism.
>
>
> It is relatively easy to decide for a corporation or
> similar entity, because there are legal documents that must be filed,
> and are on public record. It is much more difficult in the case of
> an individual, of course. I would expect the membership committee
> to develop procedures as they dealt with more and more questionable
> cases.
"Questionable Cases" will of course need to be defined to a very fine
level of granularity in order to avoid legal problems and privacy issues.
>
>
> > > With a completely flat membership model you have a "tyranny of the
> > > majority" problem, where the majority abuses the rights of a
> > > minority. In the US constitution this is dealt with with the "Bill
> > > of Rights" -- a statement of rights that the majority simply cannot
> > > abridge. [At the Monterrey meeting I presented a short paper on a
> > > "Bill of Rights" model for dealing with the "Tyranny of the majority
> > > problem". It wasn't adopted. I think the reason is the difficulty
> > > of getting agreement on what "rights" are involved.
> >
> > Another way in which the Constitution deals with this issue is the
> > seperation of powers between seperate branches of government.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > A constituency model is another way to get around the "Tyranny of
> > > the Majority" problem -- A minority (such as registries) get a
> > > guaranteed spot at the table that cannot be voted away by the
> > > majority. This is by no means a perfect solution -- there is no
> > > perfect solution.
> >
> > My personal feeling is that a bicameral model might be a reasonable approach > to
>this issue. I believe ISOC employs this very model, with individual
> > memberships and corporate memberships. This would seem like a fair
> > approach to the DNSO, and a reasonable compromise between a completely
> > flat model, and one that is constituency based and involving complex
> > weighting schemes. It also takes much of the admistrative hassle out of
> > figuring out who is a member of what constituency(and validation of) for
> > purposes of DNSO membership. Each branch has equal voting power. Of course
> > there is the issue of possible conflicting votes between the two, and some
> > sort of "tiebreaker" mechanism would be necessary.
>
> That was the model I proposed in a short note I posted a couple of
> months ago -- I proposed an equal split between what I called
> "defined constituencies" and "general membership". That was also
> the model called for in the last iteration of the POC/PAB model, in
> fact.
The PAB/POC model was disenfranchising and just a general mess.
>
>
> Though it is much more convoluted, a great deal of that model exists
> in the current DNSO proposal. There are constituencies, but one of
> the constituencies is special -- the "at-large" constituency. It
> has extremely open membership policies, and can be expected to have
> a very large membership. [If you look at the Monterrey notes, you
> will find that I proposed a representation model where the at-large
> has about half the votes on the names council.]
As we and the ORSC have indicated the only real constituency is
that of the Stakeholder. ANy other constituency's are basic contrivances
and therefore divisive in nature.
>
>
> In the current model, unfortunately, the at large has only a
> fraction of the votes on the names council. But the at large will
> have the majority of the votes in the membership, so that decisions
> that fall to the full membership will lean much more to the
> sentiment of the at large members.
Andy and ALL decisions that would meet the White Paper requirements
as well as the ICANN Bylaws would be membership decisions.
>
>
> In particular, names council members are nominated by the
> constituencies, but elected by the full membership. This leads to
> situation where the balance of power is actually *very* complex. It
> is not at all clear that the constituencies are that powerful, when
> you look at things closely.
Exactly correct as to the complexity. Hence there is not need
for separate and "Special" constituency's as they are divisive
and disinclusionary by their very nature.
>
>
> - snip -
>
> --
> Kent Crispin, PAB Chair "Do good, and you'll be
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
__________________________________________________
To receive the digest version instead, send a
blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___END____________________________________________
