On Fri, 31 Jan 2003, Swerve wrote:
> Icann or some new single body needs to serve up these words within one
> easily accesible context.
>
> In addition, I believe all attempts of exclusive control of any common words
> in the public domain thru use/copyright/or trademark by the hundreds (?)
> (perhaps soon to be thousands (?)) of different operators of namespaces to
> be invalid and harmful because these words have historically been shared by
> all in the public domain for the function of basic communication between
> humans.
>
> We need a revamped Icann or new body to deal with this issue and open the
> Icann or "new body's" namespace wider.
So, have you seen any movement in that direction? Does ICANN show
signs of becoming a more open, transparent, and representative
organization? Has "new body" sprung into existence and gained
an appreciable enough mindshare to be taken seriously by "people that
matter" while the rest of us didn't notice?
> As most of you who know me, I am No fan of Icann.
But you, and countless others expressing similar views provide them with a
tremendous amount of support, making it difficult to reconcile this statement
with previous ones.
On the one hand, there is the implicit perpetuation of the "ICANN makes
these decisions and my opinion matters to them" fallacy, while either
unconsciously or consciously ignoring the egregious and well-documented
actions of ICANN over time related to their by-laws, the representation of the
board, their tenure, their near-complete lack of participation in public
discussions(with the notable exception of Karl and a couple of message from
Vint), the apparent disdain for opinions or viewpoints outside those that
staff have previously chosen for them(based on the viewpoints of "people
that matter,") and their complete willingess to ignore their own rules
when it is convienent.
In light of so much bad behaviour, it is preposterous to propose what the
actions of a "revamped" ICANN should be, as if they're listening. If the old
ICANN didn't give a damn, why would the new ICANN that has done everything
possible to make itself far less representative, far less open, and far less
accountable do so?
You also offer the proposition that some "new-body" should take similar
actions. The problem with this is that "new-body," requiring the same
authority as ICANN to have validity in the single namespace/single-root
view of the world, doesn't exist. In this worldview, the existence of
appropriately empowered organizations are mutually exclusive.
Proposing a solution predicated on one of two non-existent conditions(that
"revamped" ICANN pays attention, or that "new-body" is a reality) while
decrying existing efforts to expand the namespace that do not have
the authority afforded to ICANN does nothing other than promote the status
quo: ICANN.
Stuart Lynn has decided in his infinite wisdon to release one or more
chartered TLDs, and that's we'll be told the Internet community has
decided, absent the intervention of a new CEO with other ideas.
You aren't going to change his mind. There is no magic "new-body" that is
going to make a different decision. You will take what is offered and you
will like it because Stuart says so.
While New.net and other alternate namespace players might not be the
answer, they have been a hell of a lot more effective in advancing the
conversation than all of the people claiming the don't like ICANN, doing
little or nothing about it and critcizing any alternatives.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Patrick Greenwell
Asking the wrong questions is the leading cause of wrong answers
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
