Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood

scubacuda writes "Akash Kapur of CircleID has written an editorial, Why ICANN Needs Fresh Blood: A Deeper View . Kapur writes, "ICANN was born amid the heady days of Internet euphoria. Its early promise to be the world's first global democracy (not to mention an entirely new form of governance) was a product of that euphoria. But like so many dot-coms, ICANN quickly succumbed to the hubris of its own vision. If ICANN has been a troubled organization from the start, then that is in no small measure because it over-promised at the start....What's needed is fresh blood -- new personalities, and new ideas to break the ideological impasse." Kapur lists cancelled at-large elections, the authoritarianism and secrecy of ICANN discussion, and the narrowing possibility that ICANN could represent a new model of governance as indicators that global democracy has failed."

Comments

Global democracy cannot work for obvious reasons

[ShatteredDream]

Those of us that consider freedom to be important and the democratic process only one of many means to that end are not surprised by this. Global governance on a world as ethnically diverse as this one is almost innately authoritarian. The reason that the US model of representative republican rule works so well is because there are no fundamental differences between the cultures of the 50 states. The EU's and UN's proponents in some cases don't understand that, but largely don't care because they have "more important" goals like knocking the US down a peg.

I rarely agree with anything put out by CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), but one of their commentators said something like this about one world government: "It will be run by rich elitists who consider it their so-called burden to make the 'tough choices' for the ignorant masses." That describes the situation perfectly. We are ignorant peasants at best, savages at worst to most of the global elite. Don't kid yourselves that global government is possible on Earth.

This reminds me of the so-called international law. Law means that it applies to everyone. A treaty doesn't work that way. The Geneva Conventions and all that jazz aren't true law, they're just that, conventions. If the US never signed them, the US would not have to follow them. The international law has always been a slightly more civilized version of the "law of the jungle." It is just the most powerful imposing their vision of a better world on the rest. Those that complain about the US not giving a rat's ass about the UN, why should we? The UN has libya and the Sudan in prominent positions including the "human rights commission." A terrorist state and a genocidal state respectively!!!!

Give up on the idea of international law and government. It is better that every war criminal get a slap on the wrist in their own country (if it's an American, they'll probably get executed in the US depending on the offense) than have people pulled before a global government. We live in a world where American Conservatives are the progressives and the international socialists the reactionaries. If Saddamn got tried in an American court, he'd have 2x the rights he'd have under the World *cough*Kangaroo*cough* Court. Isn't it ironic that the so-called "progressives," the left, have created an unaccountable world court that gives less rights than the judiciary created by the American right? Of course it isn't, the concept of a court is still new in the left's mind. We should applaud their efforts, it's a step up from gulags, logais and NAZI concentation camps.

More regulation of ICANN is necessary. It should be forced open no matter what is required for that to happen. ICANN is a good place to start with dismantling the unaccountable global government in the making.