[ Michael Sondow responding to Sam Lanfranco put his finger on
the soft ticklish spot in electronic democracy:
> > We could be using this
> > electronic space to get the evidence before the constituency.
> > Is it possible to do that here or will we find that we have [been?]
> > tricked or trapped into a breach of trust on the part of those we
> > thought (hopped) held on to the high ground of integrity and trust.
>
> The problem, as I see it, is that there is no neutral party setting
> the rules and making sure that people adhere to them.
>From the context, you're referring to the ICANN board, but isnt it
the same problem here on the list? When moderators fail to
moderate, and the membership fails to hold them accountable, the
result -- a charade of who can strew the most red herrings, or come
the closest to libel -- is as clear to you, surely, as it is to Sam and
me. Those with nothing to do fill the archives with tantrums and
asininities, while those who *hope that the 'citizenry' might
suddenly realize (or even slowly learn!) that democracy means
*there is nobody to set the rules and make sure we adhere to them
except ourselves* find more productive things to do.
When the most vocal proponent of an individual/ NCO
"constituency" falls back on benign dictatorship as the 'solution' for
anything, one can only conclude that the prospects for self-
governance of the net are slim indeed. When will we ever learn, one
might ask -- but sadly, *when* no longer seems the relevant
question.
kerry
