[ICANN-EU] Re: how much time is a candidate-director willing to commit

[Joop Teernstra <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>]

At 11:08 28/08/00 +0200, Alf Hansen wrote:
[joop]
>> "ICANN staff" has been doing a lot more than the day-to-day work.  Witness
>> the bills. I'm especially thinking of Bylaw changes and the structuring of
>> ICANN itself.
>
>You are bringing up what happend in the past, and that is another story.
>I thought we were discussing how we can improve ICANN.
>
>I have a feeling that you think the ICANN organization is fundamentely
>wrong and that we should have had something else instead. Please correct
>me if I am wrong.
>

Yes. That feeling should be corrected.
I would be a fool to spend so much time and money as I have on an
organization that I think is fundamentally wrong.
You probably  have not read my early submission on NewCo and its desired
structure to the US dept of Commerce' NTIA, at the time when the first
Bylaw drafts were discussed in the BWG and elsewhere.

I think Private sector co-ordination and administration/governance of the
Net's Names and Numbers by a Membership organization is an exciting
experiment, worth spending one's time on.
If it fails, the role will fall to a Treaty Organization bureaucracy.  The
demand for rule-making is great. 

What has embittered so many early enthousiasts is the gradual emasculation
of anything that could function as democratic representation of *all*
stakeholder interests, the domination by IP and Telco interests, the
blatant opposition against DN holder representation, the stonewalling  and
the role of  "ICANN staff."
What the ICANN  is now is a classic political struggle, with a lot of
registry money at stake and a lot of IP lobby money up for grabs.

That is not in itself wrong, but it can get dirty.

For a candidate ICANN director it's no use having one's head in the sand. :-)




--Joop--
www.idno.org