Esther wrote:
>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 12:19:34 -0500
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Esther Dyson)
>Subject: Re: [IFWP] Esther Dyson's reply
>
>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. yes, I know, who decides? maybe we should have a global vote
>on that! (just kidding!) it should organize bottom-up, Better yet where
>possible are global markets, where people get to choose for themselves
>without imposing their choices on others.
>
>esther
>
Dear Esther,
I am still trying to take your replies on this list seriously.
What I was talking about was talking about *was* of course a vote of people
worldwide (indeed of interested parties who know what they are voting about).
Obviously you understand "global voting" as meaning something else.
Who decides? Voting should be a voluntary activity, so the voters (when
they know of their right or opportunity to vote) decide for themselves.
To be ICANN specific: a small number of individuals scattered around the
globe
1. decide that it is worthwhile to become ICANN members.
2. should be able to make informed choices about who their representatives
on the Board should be
3. should be able to express their individual will directly and without a
filtering process not controlled by them.
Is that so difficult that it needs to be headed off with some kidding about
a global vote loop?
(what you say about global markets is not relevant when we talk about
global regulation--indeed imposing the choices of powerful lobbies on others)
--joop teernstra, IDNO bootstrap
--Make good use of any voting rights and opportunities--
http://www.democracy.org.nz/vote1/
