I agree that membership will not likely attract the world population en
mass. But every reference to "the lists" as being the only voice
ignores people who do not use these lists or the English language as
their primary form of communication. It overlooks people who do not rely
on the lists as a way to communicate their wishes, e.g., people who
simply call a Congressman/MP/Deputy/ICANN.
The existing organizations and these lists represent the "old hands."
Whether they will be able to expand to represent the next generation of
users remains to be seen. Whether ICANN's charter will expand beyond
names and numbers is another variable. We are in the early days of
broad public access and I find it hard to predict who will be interested
in future. It might include the IT folks running e-commerce sites; it
might be a horde of INTA lawyers who are using a different list right
now; it might be the Computer Club of Bangladesh using Babelfish 3.0.
That's why I don't favor restricting membership to existing formats,
even though I know Eric is dead on when he urges us to plan for the
bottom end of the scaling issue.
I'm not such a fan of automatic enrollment, though. Membership entails
some legal responsibilities under California law that ought not to be
undertaken without knowing what they are.
Also, as Eric says, why ignore all the current expertise? And that
leads to the question of interest-based management vs. representative
management. Do you let the ones with heightened interest decide what's
best for the rest (as banking organizations do) in a kind of Darwinian
evolution of government or do you nail down the understanding that no
government is authentic at its core unless your governing body actually
represents everybody. The latter has a tendency to dilute the
contribution of the former and that diminution of expertise concerns me
greatly.
Diane Cabell
MAC
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Bob Allisat wrote:
> >
> > Eric Weisberg wrote:
> > > The "great unwashed" will not join and vote in ICANN
> > > elections no matter how hard you beat the bushes.
> >
> > I figure a lot of average people
> > will want to get involved if it ever comes to that.
>
> I've seen such figuring, but not the basis. All the data
> contradicts your conclusion. Look at the relevant
> organizations and lists. How many people have been
> interested enough to participate? What incentives will
> increase our ranks by a factor of 100? Of 10? Design the
> structure according reality rather than fantasy. We have a
> lot of relevant experience. Why ignore it?
