Mark Langston wrote:
>
>Are you planning on implementing literacy tests and poll taxes to ensure
>only those who are interested and informed vote? The USA has been through
>this particular aspect of democracy before, Esther. Jim Crow laws were
>declared unconstitutional years ago.
>
>Or perhaps
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
Frank and all,
Your response here Frank gave me a great idea. I was thinking about
marketing some Esther/Mike/ICANN barf bags with the ICANN
Boards picture on the outside and in the bottom of the inside of
the bag, and selling them on the internet. Any idea for a good
Domain name that would be
Like I keep saying - when you think of Ester - just think red latex, and
maybe a big dildo to wrap it all up. Ester does not equal reality.
On Tue, 30 Nov 1999, Frank Rizzo wrote:
> My God, is this person for real What on God's green Earth is she
> talking about?
>
> Oh, the poor Internet
My God, is this person for real What on God's green Earth is she
talking about?
Oh, the poor Internet . . . . . . with Esther in charge.
Makes me sick.
At 12:19 PM -0500 11/30/99, Esther Dyson wrote:
>In practical terms, I don't think a "global" vote makes sense. A vote of
>people worldw
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 particip
Eric and all,
Eric Weisberg wrote:
> Karl Auerbach 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.
> >
> > ...As for ICANN's metric of "interested". It
Karl Auerbach 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.
>
> ...As for ICANN's metric of "interested". It appears to be a metric based on
> the extraction
> 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.
Interesting comment when one considers that one of the rumored selection
criteria for the original board was they they were ou
Esther and all,
Argument in a circle here Esther. Nice try though, but no cigar. >;)
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. yes, I know, wh
Esther Darling:
When you speak of democracy you should focus on reality. For now my
recommendation is red latex.
Regards
Joe baptista
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 intere
Esther "Mistake" Dyson wrote:
>Better yet where
>possible are global markets, where people get to choose for themselves
>without imposing their choices on>others.
Ever heard of practicing what you preach, your Ladyship?
Michael Sondow
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. yes, I know, who decides? maybe we should have a global vote
> on that! (just kidding
Esther - don't bother writing - just think red latex.
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. yes, I know, who decides? mayb
On 30 November 1999, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (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.
Until ICANN constructs, enforces, and abides by a coherent, self-
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
Joop, it's not fair to quote out of context. I appreciate your arguments, but
this was originally in response to a thread concerning the WTO and ICANN's
engagement with that organization. Esther Dyson was commenting on the mess the
WTO is, I think, not making statements concerning theoretical glob
Esther wrote:
>>It is not governing
> >the world, and god forbid *anything* should be put to a global vote.
Esther,
I do not want to read or understand this statement out of context, as I
think I understand what you were thinking of when you wrote that (world
government is abhorrent, whether
18 matches
Mail list logo
