[governance] ICANN/USG Affirmation of Commitments

[Roland Perry]

In message 
<11536711.1254601490348.JavaMail.root at mswamui-cedar.atl.sa.earthlink.net>
, at 15:24:50 on Sat, 3 Oct 2009, Jeffrey A. Williams 
<jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com> writes

>>Even by "behaving well" you cannot act in the public interest when the
>>public are split 50:50 regarding what their interests are.
>
>We don't know where the public is at any given point in time unless
>we take a poll or vote of a representative sample.  Ergo assuming that
>there is a 50:50 split is not even an accurate assumption but rather
>an opinion.

It is a hypothetical example. And should be considered in that context. 
Imagine an election where that was the main debating point, and one side 
only just won.

>>If the "public interest" according to one set of politicians is to go to
>>war over oil, and according to a different set is to avoid going to war
>>over oil; how is that resolved (for the supporters of the losing side)
>>after an election?
>
>It is or was resolved in your example by recognizing that majority
>rules, even if you or I don't like the outcome.

The problem with that is that the majority is volatile as a measure of 
that. Look at this week's referendum in Ireland regarding the Lisbon 
Treaty. That's a document with implications measured in generations. And 
yet one short year later, when the vote was re-run, the voters 
completely reversed their opinion on the issue. I doubt the underlying 
"public interest" has changed that much.

Anyway, in the Internet Community we prefer to do things by consensus, 
rather than voting.
-- 
Roland Perry
____________________________________________________________
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