Re: [ga] At-Large
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Thomas Roessler wrote:
> It may be practically possible to create an ICANN membership somehow
> along the way of a publicly listed company. However, that's not at all
> the point of what I wrote: When I'm talking about feasibility, I also
> mean _political_ _feasibility_: What can be achieved within the current
> ICANN framework? What can the constituencies and board be convinced to
> do? Ultimately: What can governments be convinced to do? Rephrasing
> that as a "lack of will" and pretending it's not a problem for this
> reason doesn't bring this debate anywhere.
What got the "debate" to this sad point was people who kept creeping
backwards as the anti-democracy interests of ICANN kept pushing forwards.
Here we are, and people are "debating" a system in which they get no
votes, no right to information, and no right to hold ICANN accountable.
That system is a condition of debasement, infinitely distant from what is
right and proper.
All that ICANN has done is to create a powerless and toothless garden
club. It's nothing but the old trick of a company union game wrapped with
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html