ICANN Board Spurns Democratic Elections 115
Pelerin writes "At its meeting in Ghana, ICANN has
voted against the proposals made
in the Final Report on ICANN At-Large Membership, which among other things proposed
an At-Large Supporting Organization (ALSO), which
would hold elections for At-Large seats on the
ICANN board. Membership in ALSO would have been "based on individual domain name holders". In today's resolution ICANN says that it "is not persuaded that global elections are the only or the best means of achieving meaningful public representation or the informed participation of Internet users in the ICANN process" and proceeded to reject the proposals,
while at the same time engaging in a bit of
double-speak about its action according to dissenting board member Karl Auerbach. It looks like ICANN is leaning towards its presidents' reform proposal which argues that ICANN suffers from "Too Much Process" among other problems, and that seats on the board should be chosen by the board itself, from among
nominations submitted by governments and a new
Nominating Committee (NomCom)."
ICANN't (Score:4, Insightful)
The whole disaster conjures up images of the Olympic's IOC. A bunch of politically motivated control freaks acting out of vindictiveness and hubris.
Can we eliminate ICANN and start over again? Please?
Why do they need all this money? (Score:2, Insightful)
It worked before, with less funds and less fancy meetings.
And as I understand it their "core business" hasn't changed a bit.
Is this just a sellout to pay for more fancy meetings, or am I missing something fundamental.
Whatever (Score:5, Insightful)
Every so often governements become too controlling and revolutions occur. Too little input, sweeping changes, public insensitivity, the like.
What would you do if the Congress said "general elections are so much trouble - all that counting... We'll just pick our successors from now on..."
And if you're afraid of losing freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, what would you do if they revoked your right to vote?
The board VOTED (Score:4, Insightful)
"Individual domain name holders"? (Score:2, Insightful)
This doesn't mean "one domain name, one vote", right? If it does, I'd agree with ICANN that this isn't the "best means of achieving meaningful public representation or the informed participation of Internet users".
We don't need to provide yet another incentive for evildoers and corporations with vast financial resources to grab up unclaimed domains. However, this may be a misinterpretation of the text.
ICAAN, IOC - Same thing (Score:3, Insightful)
- Autonomous
- More interested in their own welfare thatn the welfare of those whom they "govern"
- exagerated sense of self importance
- listens to $$ over all else
- obscure governing structure
The only difference is that it took the IOC nearly 100 years to get the way it is; ICAAN is what - 5 years old? We still have a chance with ICAAN, to wit: dismantle it.
Who takes over? Pick one:
- Who Cares
- US Department of Commerce
Don't like the second choice? Tough. The internet was born, bred, and raised through adolescence by the US, and to just let it go for PC reasons is stupid. Maybe the Internet NEEDS a benevolent dictator, and if so, the US gov't is the best bet.
What do you expect? (Score:3, Insightful)
I ask you: why let others vote on things and hope they rule the way you want when you could just keep yourself in power and have things your way.
Rhetoric (Score:2, Insightful)
Certainly you have every right to your opinion, but I do not think it is in any way obvious that an armed population is a guarantee of, or a precursor to democracy.
If anything, the risk is that too much rhetoric will obscure the valid point - that ICANN does not want to be accountable to the population they serve. References in other posts comparing ICANN's actions to the IOC are bang on.
Is this a bad thing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Democracy works if, and only if, the individuals voting have good knowledge of the issues on which they are voting. Richard Feynmann once suggested that referendums concerning the use of nuclear power should be restricted to people who could accurately explain what the equation y(t) = y(0) * exp(-t/l) meant; I would likewise suggest that the number of people competant to make decisions regarding the structure of the internet is quite limited.
In a "perfect democracy", dihydrogen monoxide would be a banned substance.
Re:ICAAN, IOC - Same thing (Score:2, Insightful)
PC reasons? The Internet is a global environment, and any organization that "oversees" (if that is an appropriate term) the Internet must have a global perspective if it to be of any use or legitimacy.
Having the US government take over will no doubt benefit US corporations, but for the remainder of the planet, it will be no better than what ICANN is proposing. The interests of the few will be forced upon the rest of us.
Maybe the Internet NEEDS a benevolent dictator, and if so, the US gov't is the best bet.
That is strictly a matter of opinion. If I had to choose, I would trust the benevolence of the EU long before I would trust the benevolence of the US. At least the EU has a wider variety of interests to represent.
Re:ICAAN, IOC - Same thing (Score:2, Insightful)
The US would be an excellent dictator, but a benevolent dictator? You must be kidding...
Who cares more about money than the US government (corruption is opposite to benevolence)? Look at who you have as a president and tell me how it could have happened without money. Look at what the USA does to prevent its own interests (Iraq, VietNam, lying to people about the plane on washington [do a google search]) but does little when its own interests are not at hand (Somalia, Congo, China, ...).
I wouldn't trust the US government to save my life, would you?
Somethings are fair... (Score:3, Insightful)
A quote from icann.org: Created in October 1998 by a broad coalition of the Internet's business, technical, academic, and user communities. Shouldn't that mean that we the people who create the user communities have a choice on how the specific areas are run?
Also, ICANN is a corporation, therefor it will side on the side of corporations and will attempt to modify the system to support corporations.
It seems that corporations are going to control of the internet as well...what are you going to do about it?