The Arrogance is strong in this one.
The chair of domain name overseer ICANN has threatened to reject a key recommendation in the process to move control of the top level of internet from the US government to the non-profit organisation. In a rambling and confusing speech given toward the end of a special two-day meeting, Steve Crocker appeared to say that his …
"Steve Crocker appeared to say that his Board would not accept the recommendation to limit its absolute authority."
Well, the ICANN board doesn't have absolute authority now -- the US government does.
Maybe the thing is for the US government to step in and open up the process to alternative groups with better leadership.
The last thing we need is Steve Crocker becoming another Sepp Bladder or ICANN another UN Security Council.
The Board will not accept ?
Fine then. REPLACE the Board and IMPOSE the change. End of.
It's like talking with an unreasonable child, You discuss the matter for a minute or two, to give the child a chance to comprehend. If the child still refuses after all reasons have been given, then you just MAKE him obey.
The problem here is that apparently the US Government, on this matter, is just like gutless parents who cannot abide forcing their children to do anything and must wait for them to get around to accepting things on their own. With a child it already doesn't work, and here, we're dealing with grown-up Machiavells who have a very good grasp on just how untouchable they appear to be.
What utterly fails my comprehension is why has this been allowed to go on for so long already ? Is there no one in any position of power that can do an Alexander and just cut this fracking knot already ?
"While those talks proved fruitful, the key distinction over whether the internet community would be entitled to override a Board decision, or veto the organisation's budget, has been left untouched."
The question is whether the ICANN board and executive bureaucrats can turn the internet into a get-rich ultra-luxury fifedoms like was done with the Olympics and with FIFA, or whether the rest of the world gets a say in how things are run.
"the key sticking point of whether the internet community would be given legal standing within the organisation."
What is this 'internet community' of which you speak?
Seriously - while I don't at all like the ICANN Board's current arrogance, I know the process by which the Board members are appointed and it's, er, an Internet community process with members coming from the various stakeholder communities. What baffles me about the single member proposal is why on earth the 'single member' would work any better than the ICANN Board, since its consensus would have to emerge from *exactly* the same stakeholder communities that currently provide the Board members.
Also note that the 'single member' community doesn't exist in the real world - it's completely imaginary at this point in time.
Colour me puzzled.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019