> > > Oh. I see. The "Internet community" can get their data back by
> > > collectively buying up a majority of the shares in NSI, and forcing
> > > the directors to return it.
> > >
> > > You *are* joking, aren't you? I hope?
> >
> > What is the joke is that NSI, a private for-profit company, is far more
> > open and responsive than is ICANN.
>
> Karl, you are speaking utter nonsense. One can complain that ICANN
> is not as responsive as a government should be. But it is sheer
> lunacy to say that NSI's operations come anywhere near the standards
> that have been set for ICANN.
Utter nonesense? Not at all. The word is "truth".
Anybody can be a shareholder in NSI. Presently only corporations and
organizations have any meaningful role in ICANN or its subsidiary
structures.
NSI's shareholders have the legal right to bring actions against the
officers and directors of NSI for violation of their duties. ICANN's
general membership might have such a power, but ICANN is dragging its feet
in creating such a membership.
NSI is obligated to publish many financial reports and other disclosures.
ICANN has not published any financial information.
The truth of the matter is that NSI, as a private corporation, is far more
open than ICANN, both in law and in reality.
As you say, ICANN is supposed to reach for a higher standard than is
imposed on NSI. Unfortunately, ICANN hasn't even begun to reach NSI's
standard.
What *is* "utter nonesense" is the fact that ICANN's board is creating a
situation in which ICANN is heading for bankruptcy or a situation in which
ICANN's future boards will be merely indentured servants trying to pay off
the Jones Day and Mike Roberts debts.
(By-the-way, the disclosure of the immensity of ICANN's legal bill was not
made until the Congressional hearing.)
Of course, one can apologize all day long that ICANN needs to be so closed
and needs to be so unresponsive. And I'd understand completely. I'd be
embarrassed to be known as one who allowed Jones Day to run up half a
million dollars in bills (for, among other things, writing ambigious
corporate documents) and have a high-priced, abrasive CEO who obviously
has no experience in doing anything on less than a royal budget and who
needs ten officers and executives to manage four employees.
--karl--
