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)."

5 of 115 comments (clear)

  1. Name change in the offing? by jlowery · · Score: 5, Funny

    From ICANN to UCANT.

    --
    If you post it, they will read.
  2. Whatever by Oculus+Habent · · 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?

    --
    That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
  3. More Coverage by The+Gardener · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are Web sites devoted to following the criminal antics of the ICANN thievery, such as ICANN Blog and ICANN Watch.

    The Gardener

    --
    --
  4. DNS is the ultimate bureaucratic power grab by Kiwi · · Score: 5, Informative
    It is interesting how different computer programs reflect the thinking and attitudes of various people. DNS, and how it is implemented, reflects the needs of bureaucrats using bureaucracy to minimize the amount of work they have to do, while maximizing the amount of power they perceive to have.

    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.

  5. Good Analysis by Harald Alvestrand by dgreenwood · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Harald Avlestrand has written what I consider a good analysis relating to ICANN Reform

    " 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:


    • Control the content of the "root zone file"
    • Hand out address space (IPv4 and IPv6) in a responsible manner to RIRs
    • Perform book-keeping functions on other number assignments

    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?



    ..."