|
Alexander, don't split hairs with me - the most conservative among us are all by now familiar with ICANN's committee-upon-committee-until-it-gets-what-it-wants tactics.
(see http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/Number_14.html. )
Bottom line, its the information posted which is at issue here, not Bret.
The title of the posting alone is grossly misleading: "Exclusion by Confusion"; the premise as well: "The best way to assure inclusion is to derive systems that are easy for those governed to understand. ICANN is already too complex in its practices to admit informed participation."
Are we somehow to believe that an exclusionary system dumbed down for the governed to understand, magically becomes inclusionary?
That if we are adequately informed about the manner in which we are excluded, or if the manner in which we are excluded appears to be less "complex" in its processes, we then have "inclusion" and "informed participation"?
That appears to be Bret's contention ("It's the new structure proposed for an At Large Advisory Committee.") And its just plain Orwellian.
We are not excluded because we're [presumed to be] confused.
We are not excluded because ICANN's systems are complex.
We are excluded because we've been excluded!
Judith
| 
