> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 22:20:56 -0500
> From: Diane Cabell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: The People's Republic of ICANN?
>
> > it does seem like the 'infrastructure' is in place for a
> > tree of auditable information.
>
> You are suggesting that the access provider be in charge of member
> verification? But I have three different access accounts with three
> different
> providers, one at home, one at work and one wireless. Guess I get three
> votes.
Access providers would not be 'in charge'; they'd have a
subdirectory in their branch of the user-registration tree. If you have
multiple accounts, with multiple IDs (whatever is determined to be
relevant: billing adresses?), then more power to you. (Consider that
one of the alternative ideas has been that corporate entities would
represent their employees, but those employees could *also
represent themselves...) Again, I'm content to stick with 'virtual
users,' and leave the real meatmachine behind them out of the
picture, but if you think each voter has to have two feet on the
ground, I'll try to help out here.
> ...at some point ICANN must decide whether
> to use a one citizen-one vote standard that is arguably representative or
> it
> must default in favor of the parties who have the energy, access and
> interest
> to go the distance. There are advantages and disadvantages to both.
>
As I said at first, even if it proves impracticable and people
change the bylaws to eliminate it, at the very least we shall have
gained a first-ever picture of that elusive bird, the public at large.
And, not negligibly, imo, the p-a-l will also have gotten a glimpse
into the scenery on the other side of the 'governance' curtain.
--------------------
/ John
> And for a massive invasion of privacy. ISPs will never collect this
> data on behalf of third parties, and users will never supply it.
>
No more massive than the US idea of efficiency which has led to
your SSN being used for everything under the sun... Arent you
confusing the ISP person with the ISP's provision of access? Data
collection would simply go *through their connection as part of your
getting an account.
Its an interesting dilemma, no? Either people are assumed to be
totally lethargic and doesnt care to be involved in the
decisionmaking, or theyre totally concerned with, and will fight
tooth and nail for, 'privacy'...: "You guys go ahead and make
whatever decisions you want, just dont let them have anything to
do with *me*." - Joanna Q Publique, the schizoid.
It occurs to me, however, that it would easy to implement the
*option to let your ISP hold your record. Some folks might prefer
the devil they perhaps know personally over having it in some
central Ft Knowx db.
--------------------
/ Bob
> [ISPs] are businesses. They
> are in conflict of interest.
>
To my mind, the disjunction of business from society is the
fundamental conflict of interest.
...
> I believe we can evolve our own Net based systems
> to deal with elections in this regard. By that I
> me and you and everyone else here working together
> to find real solutions. Independant of commerce and
> governments as we know them. All done in full public
> view with all citizens able to participate.
>
You have to admit, tho, that working to deadlines 'concentrates
the mind wonderfully.' The agency that sets the schedule may be
arbitrary and autocratic, but we can still benefit from the outcome,
no? As I said, let's *aim* to get all citizens participating, and we
may come up with something that doesnt fail too miserably even if
they dont.
kerry
