[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary
- To: members-meeting list <members-meeting@egroups.com>
- Subject: Re: [members-meeting] Re: [icann-eu] Summary
- From: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2000 15:24:54 -0800 (PST)
- cc: Thomas Roessler <roessler@does-not-exist.org>, Barbara Simons <simons@acm.org>, Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang@imv.au.dk>, icann-europe@fitug.de
- Comment: This message comes from the icann-europe mailing list.
- In-Reply-To: <3A2D8043.12869.176A2E1@localhost>
- Reply-To: Karl Auerbach <karl@CaveBear.com>
- Sender: owner-icann-europe@fitug.de
> ... I would be open to such a model if someone were able to show
> convincingly that the results of indirect elections are more representative, fair
> and democratic than direct elections.
Don't forget that when one goes to indirect elections one foresakes the
ability to take advantage of the laws of California (and many, many other
jurisdictions) that give valuable and useful rights to the electors either
with regard to election processes, inter-elector communications, access to
corporate information, and rights to vote on various kinds of corporate
actions.
It is these latter items that have induced the fierce opposition to direct
elections by those who want ICANN to remain closed system with no public
accountability.
To my mind, these ancillary benefits are so incredibly valuable that the
possibility of indirect elections should not even be considered.
--karl--