Trickstar: I understand your objection and I too acknowledge the legitimacy of
the issues pointed out by numerous people regarding the restrictive nature of the
rules as written.
My point is that the rules as written are the "devil we know."
While they are not a slam-dunk for democracy, if you've got a little imagination;
the task of winning can be accomplished, if not in this election cycle, in future
cycles.
I would also point out that even the experiment in constitutional government
in the US started out with significant restrictions on who could be voters. For instance
not only did one have to own property, but that person had to be male. The vote for
women was an early 20th century event.
Also consider that in the earliest times
of this republic, members of the US Senate were selected by the various state legislatures.
(There was no popular vote for the US Senate.)
The point here is that the powers
that be are by nature cautious and fearful of lessening the restrictions on the franchise
to vote.
While we in North America, portions of Asia and much of Europe are comfortable
with free and open elections, the Internet involves a world-wide constituency. Many
areas of the world are not at all comfortable with giving their users any rights
to vote on anything much less a free-wheeling roller-coaster ride into the reality
of one-man one vote territory.
That all the constituencies that comprise ICANN
have agreed on the rules as written is, in my opinion, a good first and acceptable
step given the international nature of this body.
G. Patton Hughes
Marietta,
GA USA