Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Board Spurns Democratic Elections
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)."
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?
I still cant see how ICANN really needs all the funding they claim to need in order to do their job.
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.
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
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?
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
.sig
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.
- Self Perpetuating
- 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.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
What you're basically asking is for a dictator to decide to replace himself with a democracy. Nine times out of ten (at LEAST), that's not going to happen.
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.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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?
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.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
There seems to be an unspoken assumption that democracy is always the best system of government. Any time an organization decides, as ICANN has, against an entirely elected government, protests are raised.
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.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
The move by ICANN is totally unfair. I have watched and listened to the proceedings over the last few days. I am extremely disappointed as ICANN is attempting to consolidate power within their own group. The internet is not theirs, it is ours, it was never ment to be controlled or regulated by a small group. Those who think alike will stick together, what about those who "Think Different"?
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?
internet like monkeys'