Re: [ALSC-Forum] Monday outreach meeting

[Karl Auerbach]

On Wed, 8 Aug 2001, Oscar A. Robles Garay wrote:

> Karl,
> 	Let me try to understand your first point.

> 	- Are you suggesting that Commercial Interests (is it a correct
> translation of "business" for you?) should have less preferences than
> now?

Yes.  They should have no preference whatsoever.  Businesses are free to
advocate positions but why should they have *both* the ability to vote for
those positions (particularly to vote in privileged forums such as DNSO's
names council) and at the same time have the ability to vote via their
human members/officers/employees on the same question?

Here in the United States, companies, even ones directly affected by
legislation, do not have the right to vote for members of our national
legislature.  Yet there is no one here who seriously contends that
business concerns are underrepresented.

> 	- The beneficiary group of this preference should be the
> Non-commercial and individual interests ?

Not non-commercial - Rather: People.

A human being is the atomic unit of democracy.

If people want to congregate into collections and constituencies or
parties, then they may.  But the unit of the vote should be the individual
person, whether that person be the chairman of IBM or a grandmother who
uses e-mail to send photos of her grandchildren.

> 	- What should be the proportion you envisage (50/50, 70/30, other) ?

100% vote by people.

> 	- How do you materialize this level of preference (BoD, SO's, other) ?

I'd disolve the SO's and let there be a fluid structure in which the
electors - people - cast their votes based on how they may, or may not be,
persuaded by those who wish to advocate positions.

		--karl--