Re: 'stakeholders' was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Eric Dierker <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>]

We must be mindful that the only restriction on participation is education.
Apathy is a choice only after understanding ones rights.
I personally have held a stake or two - one I ate in the outback of AU and 
the other I planted in the ground to mark a boundary.
A right to a voice is all dotcommoners want.
eric


> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 03:31:16PM -0700,
>  Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote 
>  a message of 41 lines which said:
> 
>> May I suggest that we forever drop the word "stakeholders".
> 
> Why not, I agree with you that, in theory, everyone on earth is
> affected by the Internet (even those without connection because, for
> instance, a decision by ICANN/RIR/IETF can affect wether they will get
> a connection one day or not).
> 
> But I agree with Leah Gallegos that, in practice, not everyone is
> equally interested and eager to participate. It is very common to
> restrict voting to people that show a marked interest (you do not
>suggest that the IETF follows the rules of a normal democracy,
> although its decisions can affect everybody on earth).
>  
> Speaking about IETF, it is strange that you criticize ICANN on the
> ground of restricted voting and that you support the RIRs which are
> much worse on that respect. Because of a "they only deal with
> technical issues" bs^H^Hreasoning?
> 
>> If truth be told, *everyone* on the planet is affected by the
>> internet,  everyone has a stake in the internet. 
> 
> So, the issue of who should vote is clear, at last (a problem that
> plagues every Internet governance proposal and that your proposal
>solves nicely). Every citizen. Oh, by the way, we already have a
> method for the representation of "everybody", of "the people". It is
> embedded in the constitutions of the various countries. So, you
>suggest we drop ICANN in favor of elected bodies (the name of these
>bodies start with a 'g')?