Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Lost Password
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)

    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    The Caribbean moves to Europe | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 56 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    From the ARIN Nation Board
    by Anonymous on Wednesday May 11 2005, @12:05PM (#15185)
    > > But policy is determined, not by ARIN members but by the
    > > industry elite who sit on the ARIN advisory council and
    > > the board of trustees.
    > Whoa. I find this personally offensive. The AC does not make
    > policy. The AC's role is clearly laid out in
    > http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html.

    I know what the documents say. But I am not talking about
    documents. I am referring to the real world operational
    nitty gritty of how ARIN's policies have been made in the
    past 2 years. You are an AC member and therefore you are
    a member of the industry elite whether you like it or not.
    However, I was one of the founding members of the ARIN
    AC so as a former AC member, that also makes me a member of
    this elite.

    How many people who are not current or trustees or AC members,
    actually participate in ARIN policy discussions and what
    percentage of the membership does that represent? In my
    opinion it is miniscule and that is a bad thing.

    > It's not about
    > what AC members want, it's about what was voiced in the meetings,
    > on the mailing list, and in the halls. We talk about if the community
    > supports the action or not.

    This community is primarily composed of the industry elite.
    In England that community of consensus used to be called
    "the nobility". Later it was referred to as the "landed gentry".
    Elites can form communities, but ARIN has a duty to its members
    and to the larger community of Internet users, to draw in
    participation from a wider circle. I don't see that happening
    and in fact, over the past 2 years, I see the circle diminishing
    in size somewhat.

    For instance, I reccognize the name of every person who is
    currently on the AC and I believe I have personally met
    all but two of them even though I don't get to very many
    industry conferences (e.g. NANOG, ARIN, RIPE). Average of one
    a year. To me that indicates too much concentration of
    old-timers and members of a small closed group. In a body
    with 15 members serving an industry as big as the North
    American Internet, I believe that there should be more
    people who I have never heard of. It is not necessary for
    people to be ARIN groupies or industry old-timers in
    order to make a solid contribution on the AC. There needs
    to be more diversity of views and more diversity of
    backgrounds in the mix.

    > Finally, this is the list for members to communicate.

    Does this list have at least one participant from
    each ARIN member? I think not. This is the PUBLIC
    policy mailing list; a free for all where anyone who
    wants to can discuss policy. But it is definitely not
    a vehicle for ARIN members to communicate with each other
    and voice concerns to other parts of the ARIN organization.

    > You don't need to be an ARIN member to
    > introduce a policy, or attend a meeting.

    I have no argument with being open to public input.
    However I believe that such input is more useful when it
    fills an oversight role, commenting on the actions and
    planned actions of ARIN. I believe that this oversight
    role is SEVERELY impaired because there is no ARIN
    members forum. If there was such a forum, you would see
    it proposing things from the IP network operators'
    point of view, and then the public comment on this list
    would temper those proposals with the public's point
    of view.

    > there is a completely open and transparent process with no exclusions.
    > ARIN members who are interested in policy, can and do speak up on
    > this list.

    The Communist Party of the Soviet Union was similarly open
    to comment with no exclusions. However, in practice, it was
    rare for such comments to be made. The end result is that the
    organization ossified, made lots of stupid decisions, and was
    eventually destroyed when people discovered that they didn't have
    to put up with it any more. It is not enough for an organization
    to be open on paper. It needs to be seen to be open in actual
    practice. And I don't think this is happening with ARIN.
    I think ARIN is beginning to ossify because it lacks a
    supply of new blood with new ideas.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    From the ARIN Nation Board by Anonymous

    Search ICANNWatch.org:

    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com