[thelist] ICANN Election

Donna Jones donnajj at gwi.net
Mon Jul 24 06:06:14 CDT 2000


Yahoo, I finally got signed up for ICANN
http://members.icann.org/join_now.htm  - had tried some other times but
it always said it was too busy!  Up earlier than usual, and it worked
this time.  I have one friend who got this far but never got his pin
number in the mail .... anyone else having trouble?

Donna

"Kevin B. O'Brien" wrote:
> 
> At 09:58 AM 7/18/2000 +0200, Steve Cook said something remarkably like (but
> somehow subtly different from):
> >Certainly is interesting. I have taken the (slightly long and arduous) step
> >of signing up for ICANN at Large membership and will be supporting Alan as
> >much as I can. WARNING - I had a problem with the ICANN at Large membership
> >form and had to return another day to get my submission in. I have heard
> >similar complaints from others - especially after Slashdot posted the link.
> >Bear with it and register - this is an important chance to be involved with
> >an organisation who have an unprecedented amount of sway in what goes on
> >behind the Internet scenes.
> >
> >When it comes to questions such as "Should we have new top level domains"
> >and "Who can register domain names", ICANN are the people that end up making
> >the decisions. They are a pretty dry and boring bunch, but they NEED our
> >input to help create an Internet that works! Let's try and help our Head
> >Lemur in his quest for power^H^H^H^H^H justice and stand behind him in the
> >coming elections.
> 
> If you had asked me as little as 6 months ago, I would have said that ICANN
> should be allowed to get on with it without government interference. But
> events have made me reconsider that position. Originally the proposed
> makeup of the Board was to be split between the major corporate sponsors
> and the general public, 9 members from each camp. That was a reasonable
> split, in my view. Since then, ICANN has moved to weaken, as much as
> possible, any role for consumers in the affairs of this body. The number of
> At-Large consumer representatives was reduced to 5, instead of 9, for the
> next two years. The remaining four seats will not be filled until 2002 at
> the earliest. This means that At-Large representatives will be in a
> minority for at least the next two years, when many crucial decisions will
> be made. This decision to reduce the representation of users was
> unanimously endorsed by the industry representatives on the Board. Vint
> Cerf was the only member to even raise a question about it.
> 
> However, two government representatives at the Yokohama meetings questioned
> this policy, and pointed out that government support of industry
> self-regulation might be withdrawn if there was not sufficient public
> representation. If ICANN is determined to be simply a mouthpiece for the
> major corporations, such governmental oversight may be necessary.
> 
> This matters for a number of reasons, but the one that is most apparent to
> me right now is that ICANN is devoting a great deal of energy to defending
> the interests of its corporate sponsors without paying the least attention
> to any ideas of free speech. If you want the Internet to be the online
> equivalent of a shopping mall, with guards patrolling, no one allowed to
> hand out pamphlets, etc., ICANN is certainly helping that along.
> Personally, I find malls sterile and depressing.
> 

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Donna Jones: 207.772.0266
Home Site:  http://www.westendwebs.com
Have you been to the hunger site ( http://thehungersite.com/ ) today?




More information about the thelist mailing list