On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Esther Dyson wrote:
> In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of
> people worldwide, yes, but only of interested parties who know what they are
> voting about.
Hilarious. Exactly how does this get us to the ICANN board?
The original participants in the IFWP process were interested parties
who knew what they were voting about. They didn't choose ICANN.
They didn't even have the opportunity to choose ICANN. Mike Roberts
and other representatives of vested interests blocked the wrap-up
meeting that might have given us a legitimate successor to the IANA.
ICANN represents a repudiation of the IFWP and all open processes.
Did the little secret cabal represent interested parties? Of course
they did. Did they know what they were "voting about"? Sure -- they
were choosing a small band of biddable people to carry out their wishes.
Is this in any sense a legitimate process? No. It's about as legitimate
as a bank robbery.
> yes, I know, who decides? maybe we should have a global vote
> on that! (just kidding!) it should organize bottom-up,
It may be hard for you to recognize the nuances of English as it is
normally spoken, but if we are going to organize a successor to IANA
"bottom-up", we start from the bottom. Not from your little club of
friends. We start instead with those who use and operate the Internet.
> Better yet where
> possible are global markets, where people get to choose for themselves
> without imposing their choices on others.
Well, Esther, then stop trying to impose your tax on the Internet.
> esther
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
