[ga] The false and fabricated myth of the "failed" year 2000 election.
Veni Markovski wrote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making (and note - I ... the attempts that ICANN made to set up an organizational structure that would allow wide input from the global Internet community did not work well; Hmm, I better go update the Wikipedia. The year 2000 elections went quite well. Within a very short period of time tens, even hundreds of thousands of people, registered to vote in the election. Good people ran in the contests (in my case I ran against a very well known law professor, the president of the ACM, the chair of a US trademark body, the provost of a major university, and a professor or law and business.) Real debates were held (again, we debated live at Harvard and Stanford, and we held many open electronic discussions.). ICANN got some fine directors from that election. Yes, there were some problems - ICANN's technical support of the elections was not only abysmal but characterized by open hostility, and even intentional disruption, on the part of people who were providing that technical support. And in some countries, interest groups formed and had get-out-the-vote drives. Is that wrong? In many elections that would be considered a sign of a vibrant electorate, not a flaw. ICANN uses the "failed election" myth, a myth that ICANN itself fabricated, to justify the elimination of those elections with ... with what? The ALAC - a system that is so pathetic that even after so many years of ICANN pumping money and staff has not even achieved the level of interest that we got in a few days in year 2000 when there were real elections for real seats. --karl--
|