ICANN Board Election

Purdyman writes: "TomPaine.com has a David Corn opinion piece about the upcoming ICANN board member election. He more or less says that 1) it's important and 2) it could be structured better. So, how important is it? What happens if the ICANN board (or at least the at-large portion) becomes corporate-dominated? How about consumer-dominated? Also, how should the election be structured? For example, the method of nominating candidates seems like it could be abused fairly easily if desired; how would you fix it?" This isn't the first time we've heard about these elections.

Comments

Not the perfect solution....

[Frymaster]

Okay, perhaps this is not the perfect solution... however at present it presents the only vaguely-workable solution to the domain name disaster we are experiencing. A lot of people on this site have voiced some very strong opinions and some very viable ideas on solutions. ICANN is sure as hell not lurking /. to come up with policy... so take your ideas and opinions to the source. The worst that can happen is that they are ignored. If you don't sign up, you're gauranteed that your ideas/opinions will be ignored. Most notably, I expect that the people who had good ideas about tlds to sign up. In case you have forgotten who you are, here's the list:
SlushDot
Colin Smith
Montressor
m.o
alarmo
Snarfangel
dsplat
Mr Z
CoughDropAddict
Greyfox
kerrbear
mtphoto

Additionally, there are several folks who have voiced very strong and (sometimes) very well reasoned opinions about domain name administration. I would like to remind said folks again that, while we enjoy your input here, it has zero chance of making an impact on reality if stays on slashdot. If said people need to be reminded of their identities, they are:
JohnJake
Duane Dibbley
DHartung
titus-g
cd_Csc
chrome koran
robman
haplo21112
hidden
Garry Anderson

Lastly, remember that since ICANN is not inviting you specifically to join, a vote of abstention (by not joining) will go unheard.... and if anyone has a better, workable solution, speak it.

Two errors of fact in article

[Froomkin]

The article gets two facts wrong:

1. The US government remains in charge of the DNS. ICANN is just its agent, by contract. The contracts expire in a few months, but are renewable. The US government can under the current contracts take back all power and terminate ICANN's authority. The government wishes to downpeadal this, both to avoid being held responsible for ICANN and to lessen attention to the issue of renewing or even expanding ICANN's role this fall.
2. It is not correct that "Nine of its board members are chosen by organizations that run the technical side of the Internet." Even if one accepted this fits the PSO, and the ASO, it cannot by any analysis fit the DNSO - which is the business constituency, and has NO technical element AT ALL.

Please visit ICANNWatch.org
A. Michael Froomkin,
U. Miami School of Law,POB 248087
Coral Gables, FL 33124,USA

This could be the most important net development

[PacketMaster]

This could be one of the most important net developments in the last few years. Whether net users want to admit it or not, ICANN has sweeping powers that could make life a lot more complicated and annoying for us. It's easy for people to spout off the "Oh! It's all about big business and it's a sham..." but it DOES have a mandate and control. This is not an issue to be taken lightly. EVERY SINGLE /. MEMBER needs to sign up for the At-Large program and make their voices heard. Big business ultimately won't bite the hand the makes it profitable -- the individual users.