Eric Weisberg says the mass of folks on earth will not
vote in ICANN elections, even if asked, so he proposes
going instead with public interest organizations having
a say in the process. His notions have merit, yet notice
the assumption that public apathy will prevail. I am not
convinced this will always be the case. Think long term.
I feel confident that the Internet can and will increase
individual participation in public affairs. The very act of
interacting instantly and globally is already raising public
awareness (rather, cultural consciousness) that we're all
interactive here on network earth, that our smallest actions
can and do affect the wider world. As people begin to know
and accept their power, they'll want to exercise this power.
Granted, we face the risk of interactive media becoming
one more distraction, yet another addiction to deflect us
from knowing our own souls. Yet if we keep the network
open and free, a far more likely influence will be to help
us see and value our nature as interactive beings who
daily shape our world with what we think, say and do.
Threfore, in the short term, involving a spectrum of public
interest groups in the process of Internet governence will
be better than no public involvement at all, but this would
be an interim solution only. Long term, we need to plan for
direct democracy in network affairs, uplifting all humanity.
Today's DNS turf wars then will seem like infancy games.
-- Ken Freed
Media Visions
http://www.media-visions.com
>>> Greg Skinner wrote:
>>>
>>> I support the creation of a public interest, or netizens SO, if you
>>>> like. That's what the At Large Membership is supposed to be.
>>
>>Diane Cabell wrote:
>>No. We are discussing why that is NOT so.
>
>Eric Weisber wrote:
>
>The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
>elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes. That is a
>chimera. Only people with "special" interests will
>participate. Thus, the DNS and IP community will be the
>at-large membership. If you want representation for the
>"general" interest, you will have to find another mechanism
>(such as a public interest SO).
>
>Do you disagree?
