On 20:52 18/09/02, kent@songbird.com said: > > Thus, an At Large membership can never be representative "of > > the range of individual Internet users". > > Thanks for that very succinct and clear statement of the fundamental > problem with the idea of an At Large membership. I've been trying to > say it for a long time, and I'm very glad to see that you have come > with such a clear description of the problem. :-) The point of the At Large is not to force or invent representativeness, but to create the opportunity for quality representation. While you cannot coerce people into voting, writing their MPs, etc., you can set up the system to allow for and respond to that input. I'm not a domain owner, but I want to be. I believe that ICANN's non-democratic and non-free-market structure is to blame for overpriced domains, SSL certs, and other vertical monopoly structures that prevent working class folk like myself from participating. . I have the cheap Linux box . I have the static IP Is there any reason other than ICANN's horribly lame qualification process as to why I cannot afford a domain? Is there any chance for change without individuals having an *effective* voice in the process? No, compliments of entrenched interests. -s p.s., Honestly, I can't imagine any technical reason why domains cost more than $5/year -- especially after reading the results of Karl Auerbach's tests for millions of TLDs under BIND. DNS is just fucked.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part