More About The .org Reassignment

Joel Rowbottom writes: "After ICANN 'awarded' ISOC with the running of .ORG in the Draft Staff Report, public comments regarding the process are starting to come out of the woodwork. Eric Brunner-Williams has commented on the flawed scoring and ICANN allegedly using the process to financially shore up ISOC and Afilias; the dotORG Foundation have posted some comments and questions (quote: 'we are perplexed by the Academic CIO Team's rating of our bid's technology as marginal'); Carl Malamud has posted the IMS/ISC response; and Organic have posted a rather damning indictment of the process as well (disclaimer: I work for Organic Names). For the $27,000 it cost each bidder to 'participate' (and that's just the entry fee), we'd have expected a little more professionalism than just getting some 'free' t-shirts! Comment to ICANN today org-eval@icann.org and make a difference."

Comments

Will This ever end

[ResQuad]

They keep complaining and whining about ICANN, why doesnt someone actually get their butt in gear and do something?

Re:Will This ever end

[Anonymous Coward]

"why doesnt someone actually get their butt in gear and do something?"

You mean somebody else, right?

Why don't YOU get YOUR OWN ASS IN GEAR and do something?

Maybe whining on /. will fix it, right?

Write/call/fax your congresscritters, tell your friends, start a website, whatever.

If you really give a shit about icann & .org it's YOUR problem. Quit complaining and help.

Armchair quaterbacks, backseat drivers, .....damn

Think again

[0x0d0a]

So I'd almost call this post a troll, but it has a point -- that maybe commercial types would do a better job.

However, you're missing one thing -- the informal group of volunteers and engineers that produced and have kept much of the administrative side of the Internet going for thirty years now *are* the open source/volunteer types that you're bashing so much. As a matter of fact, the commercial types are the untested ones, not the volunteer engineers.