[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Esther Dyson on Electronic Voting (was: [IFWP] The ICANN Ruckus)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Esther Dyson on Electronic Voting (was: [IFWP] The ICANN Ruckus)
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Fri, 20 Aug 1999 14:23:26 -0400
- Cc: Becky Burr <email@example.com>, "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Esther Dyson <email@example.com>, Mike Roberts <firstname.lastname@example.org>, IFWP Discussion List <email@example.com>, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <Version.email@example.com>
- References: <19990819105657.A10830@songbird.com><199908191714.NAA13181@smtp6.mindspring.com><005601beea4c$14e63d80$0201a8c0@ggg702><199908191714.NAA13181@smtp6.mindspring.com>
At 02:18 PM 8/19/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>At 01:56 PM 8/19/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>>> By all appearances, these two sides have been equally matched,
>>> with approximately the same number of people supporting each
>>> of these positions.
>>> Yet, over time, the technocracy has come to dominate ICANN.
>>> ICANN has justified this by claims of wide-spread community
>>> "consensus". But if the public support has been approximately
>>> equal, exactly how has this consensus been arrived at?
>>As Ayn Rand was so fond of saying: "Examine your assumptions." The
>>public support has not been "approximately equal". In fact, the
>>faction you describe as "establishing world-wide self-governance" is
>>closer to a lunatic fringe than a faction.
>I would hardly call Larry Lessig, David Post,
>Jamie Love, Milton Mueller and Ira Magaziner
>part of the lunatic fringe.
>But then again, I guess there is only one way
>to know for certain -- establish some method of
>measuring consensus, aka voting.
>Those who believe that this is about self
>governance *support* such voting.
>You do *not*!
>So while you claim we are part of the lunatic
>fringe, you also prevent any meaningful way to
>measure our voice.
>Please explain your inconsistencies?
Ken is not the only one opposed to
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Indeed, I am not so sure we should welcome the opportunity for
> electronic voting. That would make it easier for the elite to vote, and
> further disenfranchise those who don't have access. (You could make the
> same argument about on-line discussion, but the Net broadens the elite
> in the first case, whereas it cuts off the bottom of the pyramid in the
> second. These arguments are not a matter of principle but a reasonable
> approach based on the current and near-term availability of access.)
President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is
ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third,
it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)