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?
From ICANN to UCANT.
If you post it, they will read.
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
There are Web sites devoted to following the criminal antics of the ICANN thievery, such as ICANN Blog and ICANN Watch.
The Gardener
--
In a way, I'm at least a little bit happy to hear that they won't be conducting elections. This sounds bad at first, but consider this: the only people who would have been allowed to vote were domain name holders, and who owns most of the domains out there? Large corporations. Things are bad now, but if these corporations got to choose who to put on the ICANN board, they wouldn't get any better. No, they would vote for the candidate who would best represent their corporate interests (and screw over the little guy). There's got to be a better way.
For every post, there is an equal and opposite re-post.
Just so many bad puns with that name... anyway..
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..
.sig
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.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
So, what we're seeing here is the same process that goes into forming a gov't. The people want representation, but the gov't claims they don't want huge processes, so they may allow other gov'ts to suggest (or maybe appoint) members of the board, but then you'll have the same problem of a country of states - some gov'ts represent a larger portion of the internet population, so we should get more representatives, but other smaller countries would be equally drowned out, so we set it up like the US republic?
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
.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.
... any organization that approves TLDs named ".museum", ".pro", and ".aero" needs reform.
.minime -- for all mini-clones of people. .geek -- geeks only. Just as clear as ".pro", isn't it? .bomb -- for dot-coms that have folded. Maintaned by ex employees of the company who constantly say "... if the bubble haddn't popped, we would have been HUGE!!!"
I have some proposals:
*
*
*
What do you think? Will you elect me to the ICANN board?
If Slashdot is where the spelling-challenged go when they die, I'm in heaven.
Does anyone else find it funny that the meeting were held in Ghana, which is relatively proximate to another area where democratic elections were 'spurned'--that's right, Zimbabwe.
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>
Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
- 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
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 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
The secret to enjoying Slashdot is to realize that it should not be taken too seriously.
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.
So, how long until the ICANN board starts calling themselves "General this" and "El Presidente that"?
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
www.eFax.com are spammers
"John Marshal has made his decision; now let him enforce it." - President Andrew Jackson, 1832
Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
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
" 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?
..."
So, if ICANN becomes a totalitarian government, does that make them the fourth member of the Axis of Evil?
[Insert pithy quote here]
It involves editing your named.conf.
See .sig for details.
Screw ICANN, who the hell made them the Gods of the Internet anyway?
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
uninformed voters are infinately better than self interested dictators.
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.
they work better than a dictatorship would
So much for that democracy thing.
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!
III.IIVIVIXIIVIVIIIVVIIIIXVIIIXIIIIIIIIVIIIIVVIII
You'd think ICAAN wouldnt have the nuts to make such an obviously self-serving decision in light of the OBVIOUS conflict of interst. It realy is sickening that these Corporate Whores would insult the public with such drivel... im amazed.
This by no means is DIRECTLY related, but it remind me of the fact that ENRON got to selecting their own regulators in the energy commission.
Coruption in America is starting to become almost a Banana-Republic-like comedy.
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'
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
http://www.theMediaBunker.com
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.
It can work, but only when the voters are interested and informed.
written by Esther Dyson, an ALSC member and former chairman of ICANN.
"...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.
Use OpenNIC, a truly democratic system for domain names.
It only takes about 2-5 minutes to set up on your computer.
Learn more by reading the OpenNIC FAQ.
Pies in the face, for each and every member of the Board! Then, a merry round of Public Flogging!
As I've stated before, ICANN must be Destroyed! Destroyed! Destroyed! They have lost the right to exist. Only a democratically elected board can appropriately handle the issues that have been before this board with proper respect to the actual users of the Internet.
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
A self-selected set of 10-20 people claiming to represent 6 billion people (the current/proposed board structure) is not democracy. The ICANN critics have got that right.
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
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.