> We have seen the
> abuses that can arise from anonymity on these very lists.
On the contrary, havent we seen that abuse arises from
*responding to anonymity per se rather than to the substance of
any anonymous remark?
Dirt-space jurisdictions legitimately recognize scarce resources
(space, time, energy) and allocate them accordingly. A person
petitioning the city council identifies hyrself as a bonafide resident
*in order to create reciprocity*; that is, the exercise of the council's
responsibilities to its constituency. Since ICANN has yet to
define its 'membership,' there are efffectively no such bonafides,
and therefore no reason to discriminate identified from anonymous
inputs -- or, for that matter, to prefer multiple speakers over one
longwinded microphone hog.
Relying on an innate sense of fair play is all very fine, but it cuts
both ways. By concocting rules of participation without committing
to any substantive grounds for them, ICANN (and Berkman by
association) is doing the entire process no favours at all.
kerry
