On Thu, Aug 19, 1999 at 01:13:36PM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
[...]
>
> Hi Arnold,
>
> Throughout this debate over Internet Governance,
> there has consistently been two very different and
> distinct perspectives.
>
> One looked at the transition of authority from IANA
> to ICANN as a purely technical matter, one that should
> remain under the control of a technocracy.
> - So what if civil liberties were not protected?
> - So what if due process was ignored?
> - So what if ICANN was captured?
> As long as the technocracy got to decide policy issues
> on behalf of everyone else, this side was happy, even
> if they had to break some rules along the way.
>
> The other side looked at this transition as the establishment
> of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based
> on representative and democratic structures. Here, process was
> more important than decisions, representative structures were
> more important than political appointments.
A gross mischaracterization...
> By all appearances, these two sides have been equally matched,
> with approximately the same number of people supporting each
> of these positions.
>
> Yet, over time, the technocracy has come to dominate ICANN.
> ICANN has justified this by claims of wide-spread community
> "consensus". But if the public support has been approximately
> equal, exactly how has this consensus been arrived at?
As Ayn Rand was so fond of saying: "Examine your assumptions." The
public support has not been "approximately equal". In fact, the
faction you describe as "establishing world-wide self-governance" is
closer to a lunatic fringe than a faction.
[...]
> Nor am I.
>
> I only point out that media bias exists.
A "media bias" exists against reports of flying saucers, as well.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
