Dan Steinberg a �crit:
> I can tell you that I was insulted by the tone of Sondow's remarks
> (something I am getting used to).
No, I don't believe you were insulted. Angry, yes. Insulted, no.
Your reaction appears to have been the common one of someone who has
done what they know to be wrong and is called on it. You say
"insulted" merely to preempt the accusation that you have insulted,
by discarding their work, those who labored to develop the complex
voting and membership structures required by a complex situation.
They are the ones, the only ones, who have a claim for insult here.
> I can also tell you that the work of all of the people he mentions in
> his post was considered. It's even in the minutes of some of the
> telecons if anyone bothers to look. There's plenty of *why* there.
> In particular the Fishkin model was hotly discussed. In the end I
> don't recall anyone willing to discard it in favor of direct
> democracy. So thats what ended up in the recommendations. And
> remember that everyone on the MAC was there (unless they themselves
> chose otherwise) in their individual capacity. People voting what
> they feel is right. Boring, but that's life.
I have read this paragraph three times and cannot make a grain of
sense from it. You hotly discussed the Fishkin model, and no one was
willing to discard it in favor of "direct democracy" (as you
characterize your no-think model of one man, one vote), so that's
what ended up in the recommendations? I must be missing something.
Perhaps I've been living abroad too long.
> Finally, remember that these are mere recommendations to the ICANN
> BoD. They can do what they want with 'em, and that includes rejecting
> them outright.
They were rejected outright when you created a discussion list and
invited people to participate in it and work to resolve a difficult
problem with rational solutions rather than simplistic panaceas
whose sole motivation is the avoidance of effort.
