> The Reuters story is about ICANN = dropping the $1 fee and opening > up its board meetings. Ironically, this statement in itself illustrates how easy it is to trim off details in order to get something into print, even if one is not overtly grinding an axe (or working for a penny a word). First, ICANN is deferring the fee, not dropping it (sure, Commerce 'asked it to, but I imagine the Board was quite happy to force the funding issue to the forefront); second, it is opening up the August/ Santiago board meeting, and then will let the 'elected board' decide in November whether to continue with open b.m.s. In a broad sense, the malaise that afflicts not only ICANN and the 'opening up' of cyberspace, but modern culture generally can be summed up in one word: time. The same impulse that underlies sleazy reporting has led commercial interests to go hogwild over domain names as a cheap new means of advertising -- and then crying foul when the absence of applicable law turned around and bites them -- and leads B Burr to say today that 'it was just too important' to get commercial interests online without first dealing with issues of popular representation. Too many people have been in a hurry for so long they hardly remember what 'taking time' means. Slow down, folks, and think about what youre saying - and then the media artists will be able to quote you instead of making up their own versions. If you see a story that covers the hearings and suggests that in fact ICANNs 'business-like' haste has been exactly why NSI has been cautious about accepting a MoU in lieu of a contract, I'd like the URL, please. kerry
