Re: [ga] Re: Membership criteria - compromise

[jefsey <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

At 16:21 18/05/02, t byfield wrote:
>jefsey@club-internet.fr (Sat 05/18/02 at 11:51 AM +0200):
> > Would you not accept it?

In my family use us to say "you think too much" to the people coming a 
simple question on a wrong senario. Here the suggestion is not for today. 
It is as a global system and I think it is a good one adressing most of the 
problems faced by any distribution/voting list. I would address the @large 
voting and funding problem.

>if excessive public input is a problem that ICANN needs to deal with,
>that's because ICANN's tolerance for public participation is too low.
>the task is to lower barriers to entry, not to raise them, imo.

No. The problem is the lack of interest in a corrupted ICANN mainly formed 
out of a lot of American goodwill and IP mistakes (IP address allocation, 
and US ACPA fighting the US Lenham Act for IP protection).

>on the other hand, jefsey, i would think that you've made this sug-
>gestion with one eye on an alternative that would be both practically
>viable and politically appealing to various non-US interests.

I am afraid this is pure fantasy :-)
As recent events shown it the best land for terrorists to live is the US.
Now, I think the mechanism I proposed is the only seriously democratic one 
and can be economicaly sound. It would call for tuning and software 
development, but I am quite sure that it will last. I am pretty ready to 
build a support business on it.
jfc


PS. Elizabeth, the figures I gave were:
1) theoric to show that even in extrerme cases the system was resilient to 
influences
2) based upon the practice of a system encouraging regular votes and open 
to polling incentive




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.351 / Virus Database: 197 - Release Date: 19/04/02