Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Bucharest Meeting Comes to a Close
ICANN has been meeting in Bucharest this week; as this story goes live (assuming I handled the time zones correctly) they'll be starting their last day of meetings. Highlights of the day will almost certainly include the ICANN Board voting to eliminate the public participation that they were charged with implementing and have fought against for the last several years, and ICANN implementing a domain name tax to fund their operations. ICANN dismisses cynics who complain about taxation without representation. You can view the webcast online, assuming that the volunteers doing it manage to keep it up. If you prefer text, you may like Roessler's weblog or the ICANN blog (highly recommended), which also has many links to news stories, not that the reporters generally understand the issues very well.
Normally a sponsorship would give you a little bit of influence, and ICANN seems to do whatever the hell they want. So the question is why would you sponsor these guys?
and the answer is right before the question
sig - .
Okay, if you have an interim government and say
"Come up with acceptable terms for elections, run the elections and step down."
and they deliberate for a few years and say
"Nope, no elections, sorry. Impractical. Instead, we're going to have an enlightened dictatorship where those qualified to make decisions appoint your rulers. It's better. Democracy is a noble experiment, but doomed to fail."
what do you do?
You fire the interim government; you do so with dispatch! They've violated their charter - they've lost all legitimacy. End of story.
Personally, I'd just as soon keep the five elected members we have, since they have the legitimacy which the rest of the board lacks.
The good and new comes from no quarter where it is looked for, and is always something different from what is expected.
Well this is another example of what happens when you an organization has a monopoly. Even a non-profit organization has fallen to collecting taxes and not accepting public input in the tradition of the benevolent dictator. The question is whether they will continue to grow in power or will the government step in or will some other group arise from the internet to try and wrestle control from icann.
I stole this Sig
here is a nice snip from http://icann.blog.us/categories/bucharest/
I lost the video feed just as Stuart Lynn was saying that the 25 cent per domain name fee wasn't a tax. I agree. That is rhetoric. Someone wrote to me today and asked why I thought this wasn't a tax. I wrote back: "It's a fee for services. It's like going into McDonalds, ordering french fries, and then calling the price of the fries 'a french fry tax.' ICANN coordinates the management of the domain name system. If you operate a registry or registrar, you get a direct benefit from that. Likewise, if you're a domain name registrant."
Tax:
a: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
b: a sum levied on members of an organization to defray expenses
It IS a tax but it's also a justified one. Face it, someone should have to help out in the cost and i doubt anyone would if it wasn't manitory. Hell, would you pay income tax if on the form was a checkbox for 'Do you want to help fund your gov? Y/n.'
Just because it's a justified tax in your opinion doesn't make it one in someone else's. True, a quarter per domain isn't a lot. But look, it's being imposed by a random group of unelected officials the internet public at large has no power over. What if next year they raise it five bucks? You already agreed a quarter was OK, and you implicitly agreed they had the POWER to tax you by paying it. It goes up to fifty bucks the year after that. Sorry, costs have risen as they seem to do in large bureaucracies that lack any oversight. Then five hundred bucks, and so on until private citizens can't even afford domain names. Only big corporations can. What can you do about it? Can't vote 'em out, can't impeach 'em, can't do shit.
They need to be reined in BEFORE they get out of hand. "No taxation without representation" means just that, NO taxation. It isn't "No taxation without representation unless, like, it's for a good cause and it's justified, and besides no one would help out if it wasn't mandatory..."
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
TO ICANN LAWYERS - JONES, DAY, REAVIS & POGUE
Why do ICANN stick with Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue? Is it because of certain old ICANN links with them? Are JDRP profiteering? They are very costly - have ICANN looked for other Law firms?
Have you checked out JDRP.com - and their people involvement with ICANN?
A quote from a Karl Auerbach:
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue is ICANN's law firm, and has been so since the day of ICANN's birth. Indeed Jones-Day actually performed the incorporation ceremony in its Los Angeles offices.
Jones, Day, in the person of its principle man-on-the-ICANN-scene, Joe Sims, was present for at least half a year before ICANN was born, working in the shadows, responding to unknown interests and possibly making unknown deals. About all we know about that period is that those who were not insiders to Joe Sims process were ignored and that those who objected were treated with condescension and abuse.
Over the life of ICANN, Jones, Day has been the the dominant creditor of ICANN.
Even now Jones, Day continues to receive a lion's share of every dollar that flows into ICANN.
And one of Jones, Day's partners, Louis Touton, left the firm to become ICANN's Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel.
There is in my mind a question about the appearance of propriety.
Karls platform.
***End quote.
In a good two month period, October and November 2000, they got $465,553.67 from ICANN.
ICANN minutes.
As it one of the largest intellectual property practice groups in a general-practice law firm - with more than 85 intellectual property lawyers, I would imagine Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue make a lot of money on trademarks problems on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue.
Virtually every word is trademarked, be it Alpha to Omega or Aardvark to Zulu - even common words you learnt with your A B C's - apple, ball and cat - most many times over.
MOST share the same words or initials with MANY others in a different business and/or country. For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks - U.S. alone (please check). Conflict is IMPOSSIBLE to avoid.
The solution to this problem has been ratified by experts - so that ALL registered trademarks can be identified on the Internet.
Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue know this solution.
They would lose a lot of money, if there was less trademark problems on the Internet - wouldn't they?
Draw your own conclusions - but it is my opinion they do not want the solution to 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and 'passing off' problems on the Internet.
There is in my mind certainly no question about the appearance of corruption - it is beyond doubt.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see. No connection with the United Nations WIPO.org.