[governance] Reinstate the Vote

[Veni Markovski]

Karl,
You make some minor errors in the conclusions. How many of these
200,000 were from only two countries, and why? How many were in Europe
and why?
Why do you say that this was done outside and despite ICANN?

(And, please, let us not talk about the US; let us assume yours was an
exceptional election process).

And last, but not least, you assume the US experience can be used for
other countries. You may have seen in the blog entried I published who
was using these words, "this is the way we do it, an so should you".
In a way I read your word as a continuation of Winston Chirchill's
words, that democracy is a bad system, but there isn't a better one
created. The US is a worse system, but the best democracy created?
Driving national features into international discussion, esp. features
that have so many bugs, is dangerous.  People don't like when they are
being told something with a tone of a superiority, and the natural
reaction is defence.

You talk about channels of communications; please let us know what
were these channels in Europe, or Asia?

Best,
Veni

- Original message -
 that nearly 200,000 people made the effort to try to sign up  to
vote. That was done entirely outside of ICANN and even despite  ICANN.
 As was demonstrated in year 2000 - if people  are given a real voice
in systems of government they will respond,  channels of communication
will form (that's what the internet itself is all about).  But it

On 11/23/07, Karl Auerbach <karl at cavebear.com> wrote:
> Jacqueline A. Morris wrote:
>
> > Who's going to tell users about the vote? Who's going to sit with them in
> > meetings and consultations and try to explain the issues?
>
> Those same questions can be raised about any electoral process - and
> indeed about any externally imposed system such as ICANN's ALAC.
>
> During the year 2000 elections several people around the world used the
> power of the world wide web to create very useful information centers -
> much richer than anything ICANN has ever done.
>
> Within a few weeks the election interested enough people that nearly
> 200,000 people made the effort to try to sign up to vote.  That was done
> entirely outside of ICANN and even despite ICANN.
>
> As was demonstrated in year 2000 - if people are given a real voice in
> systems of government they will respond, channels of communication will
> form (that's what the internet itself is all about).
>
> But it requires that people have a real role, not some facade, not some toy.
>
> It is no wonder that ICANN's ALAC is a terrific dud - it offers nothing
> but a toy, it offers nothing that can be construed as a system through
> which internet users can hold the decision makers accountable.
>
> ICANN's ALAC is a theatre play - users merely observe.  Elections are
> life - users participate.
>
> In the few months of the year 2000 election we saw the creation and
> deployment of a far more vibrant system with far more faces and idea
> than has ever come out of the four+ years of ICANN's ALAC.
>
> In year 2000 here in the US we held face-to-face debates on the west
> coast (Stanford University) and east coast (Harvard University) and had
> rather substantial open discussions, electronic and otherwise.  The
> costs were not high, none of us had to expend vast treasure, and the
> electorate had large opportunities to become informed and to interact
> with the candidates.
>
> Several of us wrote our views - my platform is still visible:
> http://www.cavebear.com/archive/icann-board/platform.htm (and, sadly
> many of the issues of year 2000 remain issues today.)
>
> I joined with two other candiates, Larry Lessig and Barbara Simons, to
> form a kind of mini-slate (why that is a good thing in
> single-transferable voting is a bit arcane, but it does create a
> potential advantage.)
>
> What I am getting at here is that elections are not systems in which the
> outcome is handed to candidates on a silver platter.  Rather those who
> organize and campaign tend to do better than those who do no.
>
> The system that ICANN created to replace elections is a paternalism, not
> unlike the systems imposed by King Leopold of Belgium on that country's
> African colonies, in which a privileged group condescended to create
> play pen systems of governance that satisfied the need for those in
> control to feel that were taking care of those who were less capable and
> denying to those people the ability to make their own choices.
>
> Do we really want internet governance to be based on the paternalistic,
> even imperialistic, models of the 19th century?
>
> Or do we want to recognize that each human being is entitled to have a
> fair and equal voice in his or her life and those systems of government
> that affect that life?
>
> 		--karl--
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
>
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance