| At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
Vint Cerf has a different model
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 10 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
The trouble with ICANN, right from the start, was that so many people bought into the "stakeholder" model which says people spending a lot of money should get more consideration for their views (because they are bigger 'stakeholders', or have a bigger 'stake').
Why more people were not angry at this crony corporatism from the start is one of the many mysteries of this whole saga.
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
|
|
 |
Perhaps Vint has not realized the import of his statement:
If ICANN is, in fact, some sort of industrial "multi-stakeholder" body then it is no longer appropriate for ICANN to remain incorporated as either a California "public benefit" corporation or receive a US Federal exemption under the terms of 501(c)(3).
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
| - 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
| 1 reply beneath your current threshold. |

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
|