Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 363
Netizens-Digest Sunday, August 6 2000 Volume 01 : Number 363
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
[netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
[netz] Re: Formal compliant (Jay Fenello's answer to Vint Cerf)
[netz] server si not responding
[netz] ICANN and the defacto control of government by corporations
[netz] Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! (fwd)
[netz] National Academy study of dns and addressing and policy implications
[netz] From Philadelphia: Police and judicial response to protests
[none]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:30:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: [IFWP] Re: Complaint to Dept of Commerce on abuse of users by ICANN
Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com> wrote:
> At 12:43 PM 7/30/00, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>> Every possible effort was made to increase the rate at which
>> registrations could be processed and we've gone from about 1000
>> a day to an artificially limited 5,000 per day (200 per hour)
>> simply because staff time to process is limited. Registrations
>> close July 31.
> Note the term "artificially limited"!!!
> That means that they have made a decision
> to *only* accept 200 registrations per hour,
> regardless of what their system can accommodate!
Assuming the software and hardware can handle the load and there is enough
bandwidth, I don't see why they just don't receive as many applications as
possible and process them first come first serve. They could still set and
keep a deadline. I can understand the personnel limitation in *processing*
the registrations after they've been received. I imagine most people, given
the choice between not being able to register at all due to artificial
limits, and having to wait (a possibly long time) for their registration
to be processed, would choose the latter.
I think this a serious matter. It could give ICANN serious negative
publicity.
- --gregbo
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 18:02:48 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] Re: Formal compliant (Jay Fenello's answer to Vint Cerf)
Jay Fenello <Jay@Fenello.com> sent the following to the netizens list:
At 12:43 PM 7/30/00, vinton g. cerf wrote:
>Ronda,
Hi Vint,
It is thoroughly disheartening to see one of
the founding fathers of the Internet become
just another run-of-the-mill ICANN apologist.
>have you taken time to look into the numbers of people trying to
>register? do you know what the planning estimates were before
>registration campaigns were initiated by various organizations?
There's an old saying --
"A lack of planning on your part, does
not constitute an emergency on our part."
Frankly, even calling those bogus Membership
Committee processes "planning" is a joke. If
anything, it was an exercise in "how do we
give the *appearances* of accountability and
representation, without really doing so."
If ICANN was so concerned about doing studies
about representation before proceeding, then why
didn't they worry about "representation" when the
initial board was announced? Why didn't they
worry about studies when the DNSO structure
(another gamed entity) was announced?
What's truly ironic is the double standard that
applies to user representation. Why do people
who were initially funded by the U.S. Government
(with U.S. taxpayer dollars) somehow feel that
they have some kind of God-given right to assume
control over ICANN, and make these decisions for
all Netizens of the World?
>The planning numbers for registration were on the order of 10,000
>people.
A case of bad planning, or gaming gone bad?
I'll remind you that ICANN was originally promoted
as some obscure technical coordination society, despite
repeated claims from the outside that it was much more
important than that (Post, Froomkin, Mueller, et al.)
Now that the Internet community realizes that they've
been lied to, they want to participate in the process.
I can't blame them. In fact, if I thought for a minute
that my vote would make a difference, I would join in a
heartbeat (or at least *try* and join :-).
I now know better than that :-(
Jay.
... quotes from previous posts deleted
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Strategies
- ------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
- -------------------------------------------------------
"We are witness to the emergence of an epic struggle
between corporate globalization and popular democracy."
http://cyberjournal.org/cj/korten/korten_feasta.shtml
-- David Korten
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 00:02:56 +0200
From: Dan Duris <dan@netcommodities.com>
Subject: [netz] server si not responding
august 1, 2000
00:01 CET
ICANN At Large Membership Application
servers is not responding....
that's great.
dan
- -----------------------------
email: dan@netcommodities.com
ICQ: 17932727
*- if you save the world too often, it begins to expect it -*
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2000 10:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] ICANN and the defacto control of government by corporations
I thought people on the Netizens mailing list would find this post
by Brett Glass of interest:
>From brett@lariat.org Mon Jul 31 16:15:47 2000
>Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 13:57:02 -0600
>To: "Curtis E. Sahakian" <cpart@interaccess.com>,
<edyson@edventure.com>, <icann@icann.org>, <comments@icann.org>
>From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>
>Subject: Re: You are Turning Away Outside Members Who Attempt To
Register
At 09:51 PM 7/30/2000, Curtis E. Sahakian wrote:
>The remaining seats should be split among corporations and other
>political entities.
This is a terrible idea. The Internet should belong to the people,
not to corporations. Corporations, especially in the US, are
rapidly amassing incredible power over citizens' daily lives
in what appears to be a replay of the "Gilded Age." In effect,
they are becoming de facto, unelected governments whose power
exceeds that of elected governments. (In fact, in many cases,
they control the workings of legitimate government via lobbying
and political contributions.) If we wish to have limited
government (a basic principle of the US Constitution and a
good idea simply from a common sense perspective), it is
unwise to give these unaccountable, unelected entities still
more power. There should be NO corporate seats on the board
of ICANN.
>Everyone believes that your board is the stooge of corporate
>interests. They will not think they are losing anything if you
>put the seats up for auction in order to support what will be
>the largest democratic organization in the world. They already
>believe the seats are bought and paid for. They will view it as
>no great loss.
Excuse me, Sir, but in what recreational substance(s) are you
indulging? To put ICANN solidly under the control of corporate
interests merely because people think that this is already is the
case is merely to make a bad situation worse. The correct solution
is, of course, to fix the administration of ICANN, making it fully
accountable to the people. In my opinion, all directors of ICANN
should serve at large and be directly elected. Furthermore, the
notion of closing off at-large memberships in ICANN after a given
date is ludicrous, to say the least. Latecomers to the 'Net should
be no less respected than those who have been there for decades.
- --Brett Glass
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2000 11:27:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Greg Skinner <gds@best.com>
Subject: [netz] Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my! (fwd)
- -----
To: Dennis Glatting <dennis.glatting@software-munitions.com>,
ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Addresses and ports and taxes -- oh my!
From: "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@MCI.NET>
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 10:51:11 -0400
Dennis
thanks for drawing attention to this question. One of the reasons
for fees, of course, is that the Address Registries also have responsibility
to support ICANN so they have some new costs in addition to their operating
costs (or if you like, their operating costs include support for ICANN).
It is a very good question whether one's internet-enabled household appliances
will induce a monthly charges - do you suppose there would be a way to have a
one-time charge to "pay" for some number of such addresses - perhaps built into
the cost of the appliance (and paid by the manufacturer who "burns" an address
into the device - at least the low order 64 bits or something to make it
end-to-end unique)?
Please don't flame me for thinking out loud - Dennis' point is a good one and
we ought to discuss - perhaps in a smaller group than the whole of ietf announc
e
list!
Vint Cerf
At 05:32 AM 8/3/2000 -0700, Dennis Glatting wrote:
>I've been thinking about the issue of ARIN fees from last night's plenary
>and arrived at two philosophical questions.
>
>I run my business out of my home and my DSL link is an important part of
>my business. About six months ago my ISP started charging me a $20/mo. fee
>for my /27 because "ARIN is now charging us." I am unhappy about this fee
>but I understand its motivation -- conversation of IP space, though I
>believe fees do not really effect the true wasters of this space and the
>fee, or as it is called in some circles, a tax, is probably misguided.
>Nonetheless, with IPv6, I naively hoped, until last night, the
>conservation of space issues would go away, and thus the fees. Big duh!
>
>If we look at today's marketing hype and think forward a bit there is a
>thrust to "Internet enable" appliances, such as dryers, ovens, and
>stereos. Assuming ARIN fees persist, my first philosophical question is
>whether any consumer of these appliances MUST periodically (e.g., monthly)
>drop coins in the ARIN fountain?
>
>Thinking laterally, the reserved port space (<1024) is tight. Using the
>same IP space conversation logic, should fees be charged to conserve port
>space? If so, my second philosophiocal question is what is our role, as
>protocol designers and IETF volunteers, in creating, what is slowly
>becoming, an Internet consumption taxation model?
>
>Imagine for a moment the effect of a fee against the allocation or use of
>port 80 or 443, maybe even port 25 or 53.
>
>
>
>
=================================================================
I moved to a new MCI WorldCom facility on Nov 11, 1999
MCI WorldCom
22001 Loudoun County Parkway
Building F2, Room 4115, ATTN: Vint Cerf
Ashburn, VA 20147
Telephone (703) 886-1690
FAX (703) 886-0047
"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
INET 2001: Internet Global Summit
5-8 June 2001
Sweden International Fairs
Stockholm, Sweden
http://www.isoc.org/inet2001
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000 18:10:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: ronda@panix.com
Subject: [netz] National Academy study of dns and addressing and policy implications
Internet Addressing and the Domain Name System:
Technical Alternatives and Policy Implications
Linkname: Internet Addressing and the Domain Name System
URL:
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/cpsma/cstb.nsf/44bf87db309563
a0852566f2006d63bb/cd3626a45684d8cc852568f70074efee?OpenDocument
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 02:28:34 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [netz] From Philadelphia: Police and judicial response to protests
Hi,
I think it will be of interest to readers of the netizens list to have
some of the details of the response of the police and judicial
functionaries in Philadelphia to the presence there of people who are
protesting that the real issues of US society are not on the agenda of the
current political parties or main news media: homelessness, low level of
health care, the prison-industrial complex, lack of workers' rights, etc.
The following was posted on the nettime mailing list.
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>From bbs.thing.net!owner-nettime-l Sat Aug 5 22:29:27 2000
From: "manse jacobi" <jacobi@freespeech.org>
To: <nettime-l@bbs.thing.net>
Subject: <nettime> Brutal Treatment of Jailed Protestors
at the Republican Convention
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000 14:52:57 -0600
Sender: owner-nettime-l@bbs.thing.net
Freespeech.org Urgent Action Newsletter - August 5, 2000
A young man handcuffed crucifixion style to a cell door. The screams and
moans of young women echoing through the cell block C. Another young woman
dragged naked, bloody through a garbage strewn prison hall. Hunger strikers
denied access to water or toilets. Metal handcuffs pounding, smashing the
fingers, hand and wrist of prisoners who refuse to be finger printed.
These are the scenes reported by eyewitnesses from Philadelphia's central
prison, the Roundhouse, on Friday morning, August 4th. As the Republican
Party National Convention left town, over four hundred men and women
remained in jail, many for the fourth day. Their bails range from $6,000 to
$30,000. One man was given a bail of $450,000. Two people, including Ruckus
Society founder John Sellers, are being held on bail of one million dollars.
Their crime?
They were among thousands of people who mobilized in Philadelphia this week
to confront and challenge the corporate controlled power structure at the
appointment of Republican Presidential candidate George W Bush.
Free Speech TV has been in Philadelphia all week, providing live television
broadcast from the Independent Media Center. All the news that the
corporate media censors. Each morning an expanded two hour telecast of
Pacifica Radio's Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzales has
examined the issues and interviewed the young men and women who have dared
disrupt the festivities of the powerful. Each evening, Crashing the
Party! - an hour and a half report on the day's events, hosted by Radio for
Change's Laura Flanders has told the real stories of their creative
challenges and Philadelphia's brutal response.
Free Speech TV's coverage can be seen on Dish Network Channel 9415 and has
been carried live on over 30 Public Access cable stations around the
country. It has also been streamed live and archived at www.freespeech.org.
You can visit our website to get a Dish Network Satellite so that you can
follow our coverage as we move to the Independent Media Center in Los
Angeles on August 14th -18th to cover the mobilizations that will confront
the Democratic Party at the coronation of Al Gore.
We need your support to continue this unprecedented coverage. Please
contribute to the effort at www.freespeech.org/donations.html.
Now the emergency statement released by R2K, that has sponsored this weeks
mobilization of opposition in Philly.
August 4, 2000
Contacts: Paul Davis, ACT UP Philadelphia, just released from jail, 215 280
7536 (cell) R2K Legal: 215 925 6791 R2K Media: 215 545 1505
BRUTAL TREATMENT CONTINUES AGAINST JAILED PROTESTERS
UNPRECEDENTED CRACKDOWN HIGHLIGHTS SYSTEMATIC ATTACK ON DEMOCRATIC
PRINCIPLES OF PEACEFUL PROTEST AND PEOPLE OF CONSCIENCE
Philadelphia, PA ~ On the last day of the Republican National Convention, in
Philadelphia, the cradle of democracy, police and federal authorities have
demonstrated a determination to undermine both the US Constitution and
people's basic human rights. Jailed demonstrators continue to demand medical
treatment, access to lawyers, access to phones, and timely release. Outside,
solidarity actions continue, with rallies planned at Franklin Park at 7 p.m.
Guards, police, and administrators continue to attack protestors in jail,
seeking to demoralize and divide. Recently released prisoners have reported
eyewitness accounts of widespread abuse that can only be described as
torture. There are numerous accounts of arrestees who have been isolated,
verbally abused, punched, kicked, thrown against walls, bloodied, and
dragged naked across floors, in one instance through a 'trash trough'
containing refuse, spittle and urine. There has been a reported sexual
assault by a female officer who pulled and twisted a prisoner's penis. Seven
witnesses saw one woman dragged naked and bleeding. Diabetics, epileptics,
and asthmatics continue to be denied medication. Trauma and psychological
stress are evident.
Paul Davis, from ACT UP Philadelphia, reports his eyewitness accounts of
brutality inside the Philadelphia jail. "I saw a man handcuffed to his cell
door in a crucifixion position. I heard women screaming and being dragged
along the floor. I saw a woman screaming in pain as a police officer said,
'You want more?! You want more?!'"
Arrestees have now been held for over 60 hours without arraignment, some
without phone calls or contact with their lawyers. Detainees report missing
paperwork, and arraignments with incomplete or slipshod records.
Philadelphia continues to restrict R2K Legal Committee lawyers, allowing
only a total of three lawyers access to all six detention sites, and
hundreds of defendants. Prosecutors have set unprecedented high bail for
non-violent civil disobedience. Most bails range from $15,000 to $30,000,
while others are much higher. Two individuals have bail of $1,000,000, an
amount typically reserved for serial killers, not community organizers,
non-violence training facilitators artists and puppet makers charged with
misdemeanors.
"I consider this a civil rights catastrophe of the first order," R2K Legal
Committee counsel Ron McGuire stated. "This is an attack on our 14th
Amendment. An attack on due process and reasonable bail." "This is a
systematic political effort to undermine and destroy the momentum of a
growing movement for social and environmental justice."
R2K Legal has documented 381 confirmed arrests, not including members of the
International Action Center and School of Americas Watch (15 more).
Additionally, there are people we have not heard from (we estimate up to
30), but due to restrictions on protester's access to telephones, there is
really no way to tell. Of these people, approximately 60 have accepted
"Release on Own Recognizance" or "Signed On Bail." Prisoners are working
together to agree on and communicate their demands. Solidarity tactics to
demand their release include singing, chanting, and story telling, along
with a 150-person-strong hunger strike. Some have been on hunger strike for
as long as 56 hours. Three men have fasted without water for 28 hours.
Supporters are asked to phone Mayor John Street at 215.686.2181 and demand
the immediate release of these political prisoners.
# distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
# <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 23:25:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: jrh@ais.org (Jay Hauben)
Subject: [none]
Curtis E. Sahakian <cpart@interaccess.com> sent the following message to
Esther Dyson and a long list as a cc:. It is part of the effort by people
to figure out what is wrong with the US government creation of ICANN. And
what is needed instead.
> From: "Curtis E. Sahakian" <cpart@interaccess.com>
To: "Esther Dyson" <edyson@edventure.com>
Cc: "Bob Lewis" <Robert.Lewis@pscmail.ps.net>, <dvorak@aol.com>,
<pbrewster@alexanderogilvy.com>, "vinton g. cerf" <vcerf@mci.net>,
"Mike Roberts" <roberts@icann.org>, <jeri@nytimes.com>,
<ronda@panix.com>, <Jean_Camp@harvard.edu>, <erony@marin.k12.ca.us>,
<russ@consumer.net>, <lanfran@pop.web.net>, <lidia.carlos@wto.org>,
<zittrain@cyber.law.harvard.edu>, <tom.bliley@mail.house.gov>
Subject: Re: An Exchange of Emails with Esther Dyson About ICANN
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000 00:20:03 -0400
Esther,
The internet is the largest shared resource on earth other than
the air and the sea. Regardless of whether ICANN calls itself
the East Indies Company or a technical standards committee it is
engaging in a government activity... no less than if it were in
a position to issue and self enforce rules on who can issue what
kind of pollutants into the air and who gets to use it, in what
order, after it has been polluted.
Its subject matter has become too critical to be left under the
control of self appointed technocrats acting in the best
interests of the ignorant masses
I'm trying to imagine what the internal rational might for the
close-to-the-vest control of the internet by ICANN. I'm
assuming that there is some deep down collective fear that the
committee might be taken over some form of CyberTerrorists .
You need to realize that the rest of us believe it has already
happened. We view you and your committee as the CyberTerrorists
(albeit well meaning unintentional ones).
For instance, my understanding is that the domain name court
that operates under your jurisdiction recently appropriated the
domain name JT.com from its original owner and transferred it to
a Japanese company with the same initials.
How it is that Jim Thompson or Jack Tomlinson or a whole host of
companies with the same acronym wouldn't have rights superior to
that of this Japanese company in this domain name is beyond me.
Why am I not entitled to it?
The rational for this taking was apparently impure thoughts of
private gain on the part of the original owner when he
originally registered the domain.
I'm certain the participants can justify what they did.
Recently the Philadelphia police grabbed a fleeing fugitive with
5 bullets, pulled him out of a car, then kicked him on the
ground 50+ times before taking him into custody. They had
justifications too. No doubt the fugitive deserved it. Still
it was improper to do what they did.
In both instances all outsiders can do is shake our heads in
amazement and disgust. In both the case of JT.com and the
Philadelphia fugitive, there can be no excuse for what
happened... other than people who I'd like to see seek out
another line of work.
The responsible people of Philadelphia hold their police chief
accountable for the unprofessional behavior of his police force.
We hold you accountable for the behavior of ICANN and its
domain dispute apparatus.
Governments are really about the allocation of rights between
and among people and property. That is the business that ICANN
is in.
It may once have been a technical standards committee... the
importance of its subject matter makes it much more than that.
ICANN is not what I want it to be, what you want it to be, or
what it wants it to be. It is what it is.
I'm wondering, what if I happen to be right about this, what
would it take to convince you that I am. That like it or not,
ICANN is engaged in governmental activities. That it is engaged
in the governing of rights that are in essence no different than
if it were in control of Antarctica or the moon's surface. Only
the manner in which these rights are exercised have much greater
impact on the people of the world.
It may be that while ICANN was busily at work, an inflection
point has occurred and ICANN must shift its view of itself and
of the world.
You may be the only person who could stand up and say "I get
it!". We were once a technical standards committee but the
world has changed on us and we have changed. We now have far
greater responsibilities and we have to adjust our conduct
accordingly.
What would it take to convince you this is the case?
Curtis Sahakian
847/676-2774
PS:
I am a lawyer and I view the handling of domain name ownership
issues by ICANN with the same contempt, disgust and amazement
with which I viewed the behavior of Philidelphia police
department toward the fugative on the ground with 5 bullets in
him. I don't follow thses issues too closely but I picked up an
article recently and at least one of your domain name judges
appeared, in one case, to feel the same (contempt, disgust and
amazement) about his fellow judges. That wouldn't be unexpected
though. real judges report to someone (superior courts).
Whenever you see a human being who doesn't report to someone
else (shareholders, voters, customers, a boss), you often see
dysfunctional behavior.
If you think about some of the privately held companies you've
oberserved in your career, where the owner has achieved about
all he feels a need to and no longer reports to his or her
customers, you see real dysfunctional behavior. In fact this is
the most common reason why private companies often reach
platueas of growth and then collapse along with their founders
(a very common occurence).
The problem here is that these founders hold the communications
fate of the world in their hands (which can't be pryed from the
steering wheel).
PSS:
Do your real members and judges have term limits? Who are
ICANN's real members, the ones who really control the votes?
I'm not talking about the people who serve on your committee but
the people who get to vote who serves on the committee. The
real members who own the shares or membership interests. Do
they own these in perpetuity? Do they get to transfer them or
bequeth them to their heirs?
- ----------
> From: Esther Dyson <edyson@edventure.com>
> To: Curtis E. Sahakian <cpart@interaccess.com>
> Cc: Bob Lewis <Robert.Lewis@pscmail.ps.net>; dvorak@aol.com;
pbrewster@alexanderogilvy.com; vinton g. cerf <vcerf@mci.net>;
Mike Roberts <roberts@icann.org>
> Subject: Re: An Exchange of Emails with Esther Dyson About ICANN
> Date: Thursday, August 03, 2000 5:21 AM
>
>
> Forgive me for not responding to everything that was below (snipped for
> length)... I'd be happy to respond to any specific questions. Herewith
> some comments rather than a coherent response.
>
> But the major misunderstanding is about ICANN's mission. ICANN is not nor
> should it be a world government. it is a corporation - call it an
> agency if you will - that sets and implements policy for the technical
> infrastructure of the Net...including the Domain Name system which has
> some commercial and political implications. its mission is to reflect
> the consensus of the Internet community - infrastructure providers,
> users of all kinds (commercial, political, individual) - but not of the
> world at large, about how these resources should be managed to ensure
> the Net's health/growth. Because these are in some sense public assets,
> it's appropriate for ICANN to be be publicly accountable, but it is not
> a democracy in any traditional sense of the word, in part because it is
> not an -ocracy. It does not have power over people; it is not a
> government. It has no statutory authority.
>
> ICANN certainly does have an impact on commerce, and it recognizes that
> and attempts to balance the interests of trademark holders with those of
> non-trademark holders (cf. the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, which
> is generally more favorable to non-trademark interests than, for
> example, US law). It limits its policies and their purview so that it
> cannot be used to control speech, as opposed to commercial disparagement.
> Yes, that is a fine line, and ICANN will be reviewing the implementation
> of the UDRP over time to make sure that that line is being drawn
> appropriately.
>
> People who want to start a world government, whether democratic or not,
> should look elsewhere...
>
> Re the current elections: THe idea was not to get everyone to vote
> first time around. It was to get a good, representative sample of
> individual members in order to elect five new At-Large board members to
> represent individuals' perspective (I hesitate to say "interests"). We
> believe we have done that, imperfectly. And personally, as I said in the
> press release, I am disappointed that near the end so many people seem
> to have joined more in a spirit of rivalry -let's beat country X - than
> out of genuine interest in ICANN's functions. The heavy volume of
> last-minute sign-ups meant that many people who tried to sign up
> couldn't - and probably contributed to the jam as people tried again
> and again. But we did listen to the consensus, which had been - for
> some time - "don't delay the elections any longer!"
>
> Our goal now is for the new at-large members to come up with
> additional > independent candidates to supplement the set of nominees
> generated by > ICANN's nominating committee. (And I'd like to point out
> that at least one > ICANN candidate, Larry Lessig, could hardly be
> considered an ICANN lapdog..)
>
> The slightly longer-term goal is a lively election process with
discussion, > evaluation and criticism of ICANN and how it should carry
out its mission, > and then the election of five board members reflecting
voters' opinions. > After that, we plan to assess the entire process and
see what worked and > what didn't (including out-of-whack projections of
the level of interest).
>
> Overall, ICANN is not doing as effective job
as any of us would like because > we are short of staff. That means that
many of our flaws reflect a lack of > enough staff rather than any
deficiencies in individuals.
>
> I hope that addresses some of the
points. Please write back with questions,
> etc.
>
> Esther
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #363
******************************
