Lauren Weinstein on the ALSC
Date: Monday September 10 2001, @06:36AM
Topic: Membership Issues

Lauren Weinstein, moderator of the Privacy Forum and co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility, recently summed up the new ALSC recommendations:

"Hmmm. So the latest idea from ICANN regarding the at-large board members is to require voters to have a domain name as well as an e-mail address, and to charge a 'membership' fee to be allowed to vote.

"In other words, you need to be a 'landowner' and pay a 'poll tax' too! Well, nobody can accuse ICANN of not sticking with time-tested voting concepts."

For PFIR's larger take on these issues, see their Proposal for a Representative Global Internet Policy Organization and Statement on Internet Policies, Regulations, and Control.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Lauren Weinstein on the ALSC | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 2 comments | Search Discussion
Click this button to post a comment to this story
The options below will change how the comments display
Threshold:
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.
Re: Lauren Weinstein on the ALSC
by fnord (groy2kNO@SPAMyahoo.com) on Monday September 10 2001, @03:57PM (#2332)
User #2810 Info
I think I must have missed something. That would specifically include the rabble now speculating and cybersquatting (they are two different things) and pr0n site operators (they're the only ones making money, d'ya think they could run a campaign?) and those interests that already control the Board. That and a few hapless end-users who want a name they can be known or found by, and have rare good luck (to get by those with enough skill or money to trick or bribe their way to the front of what used to be a first come, first served line), where they then face an ever-increasing gauntlet of ICANN border guards asking (sorry, demanding) if their papers are all in order. Charming. I'm sure end users interests will be better served. Actually, that was said sardonically but it might even be true.

My take on the number breakdown is not to sweat the small stuff. The Board is a choke point, a locus of control, for the power and money interests. It has been since the beginning. If we can get an Andy or Karl on there, fine, but it will never, ever, amount to having enough seats for systemic change even if there was a 2/3 @Large. But the other side doesn't play fair if you haven't noticed. If there ever was a chance for sufficient seats to make a difference the puppet masters would have the table booby-trapped. It probably already is just in case. This is a war for the namespace between entrenched interests and the end-user, and most of the latter don't even know it. Democracy is a Good Thing, but the most the current King will ever allow is a Magna Carta that gives a bit of power to a few noblemen to take their turn oppressing the peasants. Hey, call it the new Cerfdom.

They read Sun Tzu. They've already defined the battlefield. How much well-intentioned time and energy (including some of mine) has gone into being reactive rather than proactive? We've seen over the last few days of ICANN meetings (more openly and consistently than ever) that they operate through the staff's speed, secrecy, and surprise, not the Board. Elections are a Trojan horse. Beware of geeks bearing gifts. Even if we were allowed entrance we'd be told to take it offline.

Naw, keep it online but keep the numbers small and unpredictable, pick your own choke points, your own battlefields. And if that means a few folks continuing to push for more seats just to keep them busy (and because it was the deal) then fine. Only for identification purposes though, I do admit a 666 Board seems fitting. They've got the Board but we've got the numbers. Route around them.-g

[ Reply to This | Parent ]
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.




  • This article comes from ICANNWatch
    http://www.icannwatch.org/

    The URL for this story is:
    http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=01/09/10/103651