Jay Fenello [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] quotes Scott McConnell, whose work apparently was on a Pat Buchanan website, as writing >> After Seattle, it looks like real democracy may be starting >>up again. I see it quite differently. I suspect the vast majority of protestors in Seattle would be *dead set against* a "democratic" WTO. Imagine a WTO that gives proportional representation to nations based on population. Who would end up with the vast majority of delegates? The developing world. Say goodby to labor protection. Say goodbye to environmental restrictions. Say goodbye to the protestors' agendas. So much for "democracy." At the core of the protestors' actions is that the process of globalization entails a loss of (their) power. WTO rulings have meant that people here in the United States can't unilaterally dictate the manufacturing or production processes of another nation. We can't dictate the fishing practices of another nation by refusing to import seafood caught in the "wrong" kind of net. We can't refuse imports from countries that don't "play fair" because they pay their workers "too little" or don't provide safe working conditions. Many of the protestors are in Seattle because the WTO doesn't see things "their way" and therefore needs to be either corrected or crippled. These people are interested in their own agendas -- which is all very good, and I'm delighted that their views are being presented and heard. But let's not accept the premise that their desired outcome and "democracy" are compatible concepts. In a truly democratic forum, their voices would be drowned out by people in the developing world who are struggling for the means to 1000 calories a day. I have to wonder if at least some of the people protesting the "lack of democracy" in ICANN and drawing up vast conspiracy theories about ICANN's Secret Plans for World Domination aren't driven, at the core, by the feeling of a loss of power, similar to the Seattle protestors. One of the biggest changes in going from the "old" way to the ICANN way is that the US Government and NSI are no longer in charge of domain name policy for the global Internet. Authority is being passed on to a global constituency. It's a messy, ugly process with lots of dislocations. Some groups now have more power, some less. But what's better? Go back to the old way? Anyone truly interested in "democracy" would reject this out of hand, since we would immediately be disenfranchising the other 95% of the world. But few, if any, have articulated an alternative to ICANN -- Jay flatly refuses to take on this challenge. And I wonder if those ICANN protestors that today decry the lack of "democracy" will be pleased with the outcome as ICANN becomes more democratic. Pete ___________________________________________________ Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications Strategies Unlimited http://www.strategies-u.com Mountain View, CA +1 650 941-3438 (voice) +1 650 941 5120 (fax)
