[ncdnhc-discuss] [Suggestion] "Proxy"

[Milton Mueller]

My criticism of proxy voting is that it tends to encourage
private blocs to form and to undermine collaborative and
consensual discussions that can take place at the f2f 
meeting. A well-organized faction can round up votes
beforehand though private alliances and discussions 
and win all the votes without engaging other points of view.

A proxy system is good because it is much more formal 
and structured in its representation. But NCDNHC votes on 
policy matters are only one small part of an ICANN policy
decision. Votes on administrative matters might be handled
differently. 

Our current system COMBINES face to face deliberation 
and discussion with online discussion and online ratification.
I think that is better than a proxy system, which compresses
all decisions into the framework of a meeting. 

It is true that sometime we need to act faster. But in
those cases, it has always been my belief that we should
simply trust our elected NC representatives and Adcom
members to act on our behalf. Have we forgotten (again)
why they are elected?

>>> "YJ Park" <yjpark at myepark.com> 10/18/02 12:29AM >>>
Dear Norbert,

> can you please elaborate your proposal - how would it work, or how
does
> it work in other constituencies? Is it - with others constituenceis
-
> strengthening their ability to act quickly during the ICANN sessions
in
> terms of voting? How does it related to the on-line voting?

I am happy to clarify the issues raised here.

The "proxy" has been applied to either "F2F meeting" or
"teleconference"
in other constituencies.

i.e. Proxy at the F2F meeting. ccTLD constituency in theory has more
than
200 members but only 30 - 40 ccTLD managers attend the meeting in
person.
The others who can't attend the ccTLD meeting can give their "proxy"
to
other ccTLD managers. It is implemented either through mailing list
publicly
or through ccTLD secretariat. NC also adopts proxy during its F2F
meeting.

i.e. Proxy during NC teleconference. NC has 21 members but usually
less than 15. Therefore, those cannot attend the call notify in
advance
either to the NC list or DNSO secretariat to whom the proxy should be
transfered.

Therefore, I here suggested "proxy" during F2F meeting where NCDNHC
may not have more than 100 members. On the other hand, sometimes
there are members around the ICANN meeting but due to their other
conflicting meetings, they cannot participate in resolution voting on
the
spot.

For the clarification for our resolution voting, NCDNHC adopted
two-layer
processes both F2F meeting and post-online voting.

> I am sympathetic to your proposal, as it seems to be a way to make
it
> easier for the NCDNHC to react and act during ICANN meetings. In the
> past I felt ometimes that the NCDNHC was somewhat paralyzed to act
> during ICANN meetings (as those who are present cannot speak fully
for
> the whole constituency), while other constituencies did not seem to
have
> the same constraints.

Thank you for your understanding and let's explore how we can achieve
the most agreeable and most effective procedure for us.

YJ

> Norbert
>
>
>
>
> YJ Park wrote:
> > Dear members,
> >
> > Since NCDNHC was recognized as a constituency by ICANN Board
> > in August 1999, NCDNHC has tried to build effective working
relations
> > among members through email, teleconference and f2f meeting.
> >
> > After more than three years, it is high time for NCDNHC to
introduce
> > another working mechanism in addition to the existing mechanisms
> > which has turned out to be effective system in other constituency
> > especially in ccTLD constituency and NC.
> >
> > "PROXY"
> >
> > A number of members expressed they could not come to Shanghai
> > meeting due to many reasons. However, if we introduce "PROXY",
> > those who cannot be in Shanghai in person can "indirectly" attend
> > NCDNHC meeting giving their "Proxy" to other members who are
> > planning to attend.
> >
> > If this is agreeable, I would like to propose NCDNHC in Shanghai
> > shall introduce "PROXY" to its members.
> >
> > Regards,
> > YJ
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
> > http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss 
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Norbert Klein
> Open Forum of Cambodia: www.forum.org.kh 
>
> Support democratic control of the Internet!
> Go to http://www.icannatlarge.org and Join ICANN At Large!
>
>


_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at icann-ncc.org 
http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss