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)."
Once again, ICANN says bend over (Score:1, Redundant)
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?
Re:ICANN't (Score:1)
I say down with ICANN. We should elect our own board and force our ISPs and governments to accept it. Down with ICANN!
I cannot be so quick to judge (Score:3, Interesting)
We aren't control freaks. We don't have some sinister motive. We thought that it was in the best interests of the organization that this be done. Why?
In our situation we had three types of voters. The first type was the people who just didn't care. They represented the majority of eligible voters. They didn't really understand the issues that board dealt with, primarily because they just didn't care.
The second type was a small group of concerned individuals who actually cared and educated themselves on the issues. Unfortunately their numbers were very small.
The last group was the cause du jour voters. They were voting because of one particular issue. They often engaged in relentless political attacks to get their one small issue recognized. They were quick to villify and eliminate anyone who wasn't blindly supportive of their cause. They could quickly destroy years of work. I'm not including those dedicated people who believed in an issue in this group. This group consists of people who, after causing everyone a lot of pain, simply disappear and leave others to pick up the pieces of the organization and move forward.
By eliminating member voting we have allowed the Board-- a group of people who understand the issues and care about the organization, do their job. There is an obvious danger, of course, because the Board has lost oversight by the membership, but it has made the organization a whole lot better.
I'm not saying I support ICANN's decision 100%. At some level the oversight is needed. In our case, if the Board screws up people can always go to another company. The ICANN situation is not nearly so simple. I'm just trying to show a peek at the other side of the fence.
Re:I cannot be so quick to judge (Score:1)
*Dont whine and say they did last election, sore loser. I said supreme court because they are not elected per say, and they have a life time appointment.
Sorry, but wrong (Score:2)
I did not respect the cause du jour voters because they were not really interested in the organization as a whole. They would scream, literally scream, at meetings. Occasionally it got to bad that we would hire a third-party mediator. When the mediator told them that they had to let everyone speak they screamed at the mediator for being "unfair" and "biased". In one instance they got a few of them elected to the Board of Directors. They then realized that they couldn't effect the one issue that they were screaming about (it had been dead for a year), so they stopped showing up for meetings. They didn't even have the courtesy to formally resign.
Name change in the offing? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Empires need financing, silly (Score:1)
It's time to opt out of all functions administered by ICANN and turn to alternate institutions (AlterNIC?). If ICANN is rendered irrelevant and people stop sending it money, it will collapse. Of course, we will have to fight any effort to give it tax money or a legal monopoly on domain-naming services or there will no longer be an option.
Re:Why do they need all this money? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm just repeating what someone else posted in a comment to a previous ICANN-related story--but isn't it strange that it costs ICANN millions of dollars a year to do what Jon Postel used to do in his spare time on his personal workstation?
All the centralization the Internet really needs is someone to dole out IP addresses and suggest where to look for root nameservers. Okay, well-known port assignments too. (E.g., tcp/25 is for SMTP, tcp/80 is for HTTP, etc.)
Anything else that ICANN does is superfluous to the actual need, and much of it is dangerous.
I wish Jon Postel had appointed a Benevolent Dictator Heir-Apparent before he passed away a few years ago.
Good (Score:1, Interesting)
This would bias the membership heavily in favor of corporate members.
Legislation - Argh! (Score:1)
Just my two cents of course.
Re:Legislation - Argh! (Score:1)
Re:Legislation - Argh! (Score:1)
Re:Legislation - Argh! (Score:1)
I was thinking more along the lines of how the Federal Government regulates the water flow in the Atchafalaya using locks.
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?
Re:Whatever (Score:4, Funny)
No...that's why we have the Supreme Court!
And that counts for what? (Score:3, Informative)
"John Marshal has made his decision; now let him enforce it." - President Andrew Jackson, 1832
Re:And that counts for what? (Score:1)
Re:And that counts for what? (Score:1)
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.
Re:Rhetoric (Score:2, Informative)
Analogies aside, I agree. A few reminders from their own fact sheet [icann.org] (I highlight for effect):
Perhaps they need to take a look at their own beginnings. No one should become so powerful or important as to forget where they started.
Re:Whatever (Score:1)
Sadly, most people would take it if they phased it in properly...
More Coverage (Score:5, Informative)
There are Web sites devoted to following the criminal antics of the ICANN thievery, such as ICANN Blog [lextext.com] and ICANN Watch [icannwatch.org].
The Gardener
Elections may go bad (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Elections may go bad (Score:1)
Would they be organized? (Score:2)
It can work, but only when the voters are interested and informed.
Re:Elections may go bad (Score:1)
But that concept received virtually no public support (as if that mattered in the land of ICANNia.)
There was far more support for keeping the previously used criteria: Anyone of age 16 or more who had a postal address.
There have been even broader proposals - the key being some means to have a degree of confidence that any single person gets but one vote.
UCAN? ICANN ALSO, now UCANT. (Score:3, Interesting)
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"
...What? So suggest something that is. OF COURSE it's not the ONLY, probably not the BEST, but unless you suggest something BETTER, let's go with this one. I personally think a global Internet election would be perfect for this. You'd have to find some way to make it secure against kiddies bombing the votes one way or the other, but I'd say that'd count as "informed participation of Internet users in the ICANN process."
Except they won't do that. They just want to be gods on the Internet... "NO DOMAIN FOR YOU!" Egh..
Sounds familiar (Score:1, Flamebait)
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)
Isn't this just like the inbreeding that allowed Enron to get away with murder? Maybe ICANN should consider relocating to Houston - I understand there is office space available...
The board VOTED (Score:4, Insightful)
qualifications. (Score:4, Interesting)
You just have to have a trusty worthy dictator.
I somehow do not see these folks as all being properly qualified in this regard.
at least, in other times, there was the appearance of legitamcy where a large body voted power to a few strong men. Here, there isn't even that.
This is a new governement, treat it like one. (Score:4, Interesting)
No, this is going to be another "Good old boy" club, where all the board memebers do things for each other and for their own prestige and power. They nominate others who will help them in their own work, and shun anyone that doesn't comply.
They claim no responsability to anyone, least of all their users, so they will actually become targets of corporate lobbies and 'gifts'.
So, let's look back on history, and see if we can find examples of how such organizations and governements were effectively changed by their citizens.
Move along, nothing to see here, politics as usual.
-Adam
Re:This is a new governement, treat it like one. (Score:2)
ICANN needs to 1) lose it's name, 2) enact a judiciary, 3) allow people to register to vote in the elections/proceedings no matter how late in the game they are (obviously once an election is over, that's it), and 4) set some binding rules that forbid the main ICANN/whatever members from ever trying to enact a rule or rules that would ever disenfranchise netizens.
As for the current member/board of ICANN, I think there needs to be more members representing more areas of the world. It definately shouldn't be based upon population (ala the US House, for example), but more like the US Senate (each country would get one representative?). A chairman/leader would be elected as well, by the netizens, with certain powers to keep the whole thing half-assed balanced.
Really, that's probably better than the current system, despite the way people feel about American politics.
Re:This is a new governement, treat it like one. (Score:2)
What I was saying is that it's a lot easier (path of least resistance) to run a club than a government. We must treat it as a governement if we expect change, even if it is missing key features of what we would consider a true gov't.
The true test will come when they try to take over other territory, such as W3C. They won't have a 'typical' military, and no one will call it a 'war', but it will essentially be combat (political) for cyberspace rights.
-Adam
Re:This is not a new government, no need for one (Score:1)
No, the problem is that ICANN is taking on way more authority than is required to do its job--which is to perform the minimum level of coordination of "Assigned Names and Numbers."
ICANN shouldn't be making any decisions that would ever require the interpretation of a judiciary or the enforcement of an executive. If that kind of "government" is necessary then let the real government take care of it.
Oh? You say there's no worldwide government? Oh well. That's no excuse for making a special little ad hoc pseudo-government to run the Internet.
As long as we're not stepping on each other's IP addresses, and as long as there's more-or-less-general agreement on which root nameservers are considered authoritative, what more do we need?
Specifically, international trademark and other intellectual property law belongs in the appropriate existing judicial fora. There's no need for a separate legal entity for that.
Re:This is a new governement, treat it like one. (Score:1)
Isn't the "Good old boy" club operating at every level--condominium, city, state, country, student--where they do dole a vote to every drooling fucknozzle that, nine times out of ten, won't even show up to vote? Let alone carefully study the issues for free as if his very life depended on the outcome and he's got absolutely nothing at all better to do with his time...
The last time I checked, Adam, elections were run by Madison Avenue and a lot of voters couldn't even figure out the ballot itself!
Elections are run like a light-switch: first you pay your dues to the "Good Old Boys" and assure them of your future reliability and support, then they buy you an election--which you wouldn't be able to afford on your own, I assure you.
Why is everybody so in love with one-man-one-vote elections--"the cornerstone of democracy"--which have now been reduced in virtually every setting where they occur today, to something that obviously isn't even close to working at an acceptable level?
Thank Christ that ICANN isn't asleep at the switch and isn't going to serve us up another something like the Savings and Loan industry collapse, for example, that passes for self-government these days, but is, in reality, just another scam to bilk Joe Smuck--which is you and me, kiddo.
See also (Score:3, Informative)
"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.
dot-what dot-are dot-they dot-thinking (Score:3, Funny)
I have some proposals:
*
*
*
What do you think? Will you elect me to the ICANN board?
Re:dot-what dot-are dot-they dot-thinking (Score:1, Redundant)
its an OpenNIC [unrated.net] TLD
They show you how to easly add name servers! [unrated.net]
Do it! Get/help other people to do it! Spread the word, and we can help overthrow ICANN!
Re:dot-what dot-are dot-they dot-thinking (Score:1)
But the point of this story is that we can't elect anyone!
They want to run ICANN like a corporation, only with no owners they have to explain their decisions to.
They are taking the internet and making it their private toy, if you will.
From now on, if you want to influence something, cough up the money for a meeting in some exotic location...
And maybe they'll listen, if they feel like it...
Ironic (Score:4, Interesting)
ICANN is no better than Mugabe and his henchman--hell, at least they gave the impression that the election was fair.
<steam>Anyone want to join me in a holy crusade against ICANN?</steam>
Re:Ironic (Score:1)
Re:Ironic (Score:2)
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.
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?
DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab (Score:5, Informative)
There are a lot of things in the DNS protocol that are downright ugly, such as the useless idea of "zones", the allowing of NS referrals without glue records, and the CNAME record. These only make sense when we look at the needs of those that designed DNS. The protocol is designed to make it as difficult as possible to manage DNS records (so that the bureaucrats can feel cozy that they know how to manage zones better than the average system administrator). The fact that MX and NS records point to names instead of IPs reflects the fact that the average DNS bureaucrat was too lazy to run their zone files through a sed script when making changes. The fact that out-of-bailiwick NS records (records without glue) is allowed reflects both the average DNS bureaucrat is too lazy to supply the IP for an out-of-bailiwick record, and that a DNS bureaucrat likes having well defined boundaries of authoritity.
The top down hierarchical structure of DNS also reflects the fact that the bureaucrat likes well-defined authority. The discomfort BIND developers with alternate root servers reflects the bureaucrat's desperate need to cling on to the power that they perceive having.
The fact that some DNS bureaucrats have really silly requirements for someone to have a domain in their bureau [cr.yp.to] shows the kind of power grabs DNS bureaucrats enjoy having.
It comes to no surprise to me that ICANN does not want things like democratic elections; their job is to do things as slowly as possible (doing things any faster would actually take work) while getting as much control and sucking as much money out of the system as possible.
Now, at this point, all I am doing is defining the problem; I do have some ideas bouncing around my head as to what a solution should be; however those ideas still use the top-down hierarchical structure that DNS has. It would be better if there was a way to have the DNS resolution structure be based on rough consensus instead of via a top-down structure; perhaps something that allows indivual DNS servers to send "votes" on who should control a given top-level-domain; if a given set of servers for a given top-level domain get enough "votes", they control the TLD in question.
Then again, a community-controlled system needs protections to not become the diastar that IRC has become; where 14-year old kids struggle to control the channel so they can be a jerk by kicking and banning people at random.
- Sam
Re:DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab (Score:2, Informative)
"What is the OpenNIC?
The OpenNIC is a user owned and controlled Network Information Center offering a democratic, non-national, alternative to the traditional Top-Level Domain registries.
Users of the OpenNIC DNS servers, in addition to resolving host names in the Legacy U.S. Government DNS, can resolve host names in the OpenNIC operated namespaces as well as in the namespaces with which we have peering agreements (at this time those are AlterNIC and The Pacific Root).
Who makes up the OpenNIC?
Membership in the OpenNIC is open to every user of the Internet. All decisions are made either by a democratically elected administrator or through a direct ballot of the interested members and all decisions, regardless of how they are made, within OpenNIC are appealable to a vote of the general membership."
OpenNIC currently resolves
Re:DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab (Score:1)
BTW, I have a feeling most DNS "bureaucrats" are overworked, underpaid sysadmins what have much better things to do than implement the latest poorly thought out naming scheme handed down by the PHBs.
Re:DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab (Score:1)
As for "the discomfort BIND developers [have] with alternate root servers," the IETF has also gone on record as favoring a single root.
Re:DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab (Score:2)
I can understand a lame-ass registrar with poorly-written software not catching this, but the NSI Registry (aka Verisign GRS) should know better, and should have rejected it.
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.
where? (Score:1)
Are you sure it wasn't Zimbabwe?
So, how long... (Score:3, Funny)
These are the antics of a banana republic dictator - the same methods should be used to remove them.
Come mister ICANN
Tally me domain name
Alternate root gonna break you down
It's dot-biz dot-per dot-com CRASH
Alternate root gonna break you down
They!
They say PAAAAY-OH
Alternate root gonna break you down
Voting against elections... (Score:1, Redundant)
Heres a list of ICANN swindle resort trips to be ! (Score:1, Informative)
Rhodes, Greece ; Yokohama, Japan ; Bucharest, Romania; Washington, DC, USA
Lomé, Togo ; Honolulu, Hawaii, USA ; Amsterdam, Netherlands
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA ; Accra, Ghana ; Bangkok, Thailand ; San Diego, California, USA
Salzburg, Austria
ICAN wastes millions partying in far away locales to prevent proper voting.
Look how much they sqaunder. Its as if they are trying to funnel funds into Travel Agencies!
9-13 September -- RIPE 43 -- Rhodes, Greece
14-19 July 2002 -- IETF 54 -- Yokohama, Japan
24-28 June 2002 -- ICANN Meetings -- Bucharest, Romania
18-21 June 2002 -- INET 2002 (ISOC) -- Washington, DC, USA
3-6 June 2002 -- TERENA Networking Conference 2002 -- Limerick, Ireland
14 May 2002 -- AfriNIC -- Lomé, Togo
5-13 May 2002 -- AFNOG Network Technology Workshop (5-10 May) AFNOG 2002 (12-13 May) -- Lomé, Togo
7-11 May 2002 -- WWW2002: Eleventh International World Wide Web Conference -- Honolulu, Hawaii, USA
29 April - 3 May 2002 -- RIPE 42 -- Amsterdam, Netherlands
7-10 April 2002 -- ARIN IX -- Las Vegas, Nevada, USA
17-22 March 2002 -- IETF 53 -- Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
10-14 March 2002 -- ICANN Meetings -- Accra, Ghana
3-7 March 2002 -- APNIC 13 -- APRICOT 2002
ICANN Address Supporting Organization (ASO) General Assembly (5 March 2002) Bangkok, Thailand
10-12 February 2002 -- NANOG 24 -- Miami, Florida, USA
6-8 February 2002 -- Network and Distributed System Security Symposium 2002 -- San Diego, California, USA
1-2 February 2002 -- Tagung des ICANN Studienkreis -- Salzburg, Austria
By wasting money and creating a need for a big budget they are trying to create a situation where funding is vital and needs to be extorted from someone.
Re:Heres a list of ICANN swindle resort trips to b (Score:1)
Guess you won't find many ICANN attendees down at the local blood bank donating.
Democratic Elections work well in the US (Score:1)
well (Score:2)
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:Is this a bad thing? (Score:1)
yes it is a bad thing (Score:2)
Furthermore democracies genrally work especially if they concern something as trivial as what icann is supposed to do. Usually really uninformed voters will not vote and only the informed ones will, unless icann does something stupid or starts spending a lot of money, then every one will vote against them.
Maybe the people competent to make decisions about the structure of the internet is limited, but people that have domain names are competent enough to know when the ones making the decisions are fucking up.
Also ICANN is not really going with meritocracy either, they are choosing some self perpetuating form of government that ensures the current board members remain in power.
Re:Is this a bad thing? (Score:1)
Feynman doesn't always make sense. In one crucial passage he tries to argue that "ethical values lie outside the scientific realm". This must be a comforting opinion for someone who worked on the bomb, but he is on controversial ground, and here most of all he reveals himself to be surprisingly inarticulate. Here is one whole argument for the separation of science and ethics: "First, in the past there were conflicts. The metaphysical positions have changed, and there have [sic] been practically no effect on the ethical views. So there must be a hint that there is an independence."
By the way, equating democracy with unwashed plebeians is dishonest - particularly the comments about "perfect democracy" as we can make equally absurd points about patronage and non elected bodies.
Good Analysis by Harald Alvestrand (Score:5, Interesting)
" ICANN Reform - a personal view
Note: This is not the view of any body, organization or entity that I
sometimes represent. It is my personal attempt to organize thoughts that can
form the basis of saying something about how ICANN should be organized.
What ICANN was designed to do
ICANN, as designed, was supposed to carry out a few tasks:
All these functions can occupy a full-time person. Making sure the
information about those changes and modifications are visible to the world at
large throuh a web service can occupy another.
The rest of ICANN is concerned with one matter only:
Who gives those two people their instructions?
..."
What did you expect? (Score:1)
ICANN - A Totalitarian Government? (Score:2)
There's a way around ICANN (Score:2, Informative)
It involves editing your named.conf.
See .sig for details.
shut them down (Score:2)
Screw ICANN, who the hell made them the Gods of the Internet anyway?
Well (Score:2)
Maybe we can have King George move in?
Why haven't we replaced ICANN yet????
The internet is designed to route around problems, after all!
Re:Well (Score:2)
What I want to know... (Score:1)
On Topic Enron Comment ( ! ) (Score:2)
This by no means is DIRECTLY related, but it remind me of the fact that ENRON got to selecting their own regulators [mindfully.org] in the energy commission.
Coruption in America is starting to become almost a Banana-Republic-like comedy.
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?
ironic or coincidence? (Score:2)
Isn't it odd that the quote of the day (at the bottom of slashdot pages) when this story was posted is:
"When you have an efficient government, you have a dictatorship. -- Harry Truman"
--T
from the ICANN press release (Score:2)
"...The ALSC is an independent Committee created by ICANN earlier this year to provide recommendations to ICANN's Board on how to structure the diverse
>global Internet community's participation within ICANN..."
on other news, the king abolished voting, appointed a committe (headed by himself) to decide if voting was really necessary, which declared voting rights "an overwhelming success", by which they meant "there will be no more voting", and assured the voters that he was happy to have be re-appointed ruler and would strive to remember those who got him there.
OPENNIC (Score:4, Informative)
Use OpenNIC, [unrated.net] a truly democratic system for domain names.
It only takes about 2-5 minutes to set up on your computer. [unrated.net]
Learn more by reading the OpenNIC FAQ [opennic.glue].
Re: (Score:2)
Re:If it works for Anita Bryant and Bill Gates... (Score:1)
The real question is: to be replaced by what?
By the pseudo-democratic fiction of the At-Large membership, which has provided us with ineffable twits of the caliber of Andy Müller-Maguhn (the Chaos Computer Club would-be At-Large director)? Or else by government representatives, as the GAC (Governmental Advisory Committee) keeps clamoring about?
Folks, let's drop this matter... Let's just fuck up as much as we can the single DNS root server system, as already proposed by many worthy colleagues and fellow Netters, and let us deny a single entity the privilege of deciding on who can and who cannot get a domain name.
We want a real Internet democracy? Why allow corporate/government goons to edict rules which are technically unnecessary then?
ThufirHawat
PS I fully back smagruder in his request for a Public Flogging of the current AmerICANN directors...
ICANN is something not many folks care about... (Score:1)
...or care what ICANN does or how they do it.
When I posted this the story had been up for 7 plus hours but has only 99 comments. I would imagine even less than that have ever let ICANN know their feelings about how ICANN should be run.
ICANN sees apathy from the community so they just do as they please because they don't think anyone will ever complain.
The ICANN Movie: Muahahahaha! (Score:1)
http://paradigm.nu/icann/icannstage.html [paradigm.nu]
Muahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Imagine if normal corporations ran the same way... (Score:2)
ICANN proved that representative govt is hard (Score:2)
However, a self-selected set of 20.000 people claiming to represent 6 billion people (the current round of At Large elections) IS NOT DEMOCRACY EITHER.
Stuart got that much right.
Harald