"Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Unfortunately, the situation is not analogous. Unlike ICANN, no one
>really cares if the Aquarium is "captured" by its corporate patrons.
Are you sure? I think that if their corporate patrons decided to
tear it down and build condominiums on it, a lot of people would
care.
>Those who have chosen to entrust the acquarium with resources did so
>after the acquarium proved itself, and have alternatives in the event
>the acquarium proves untrustworthy.
There are alternatives if ICANN proves untrustworthy. It would,
however, require a coordinated effort by everyone involved. I think
your argument would be stronger if ICANN controlled the world
telecommunications infrastructure.
>ICANN controls the bottleneck facilities of the Internet. I can do
>without the Aquarium, if I don't like its sponsors or exhibits or
>policies. I can get blood from hospitals without worrying about the Red
>Cross. But I will be unable to get a domain name or an IP address
>without encountering a mandatory ICANN contract via my name
>registrar or ARIN (or whoever sells it to me second or third hand).
The point I was trying to make is that the Aquarium has been entrusted
with some public resources, and how those resources are utilized
affect a diverse community of nontrivial size. No, they do not
control access to (a particular ordering of) those resources. This
doesn't mean that the means by which it was established could not also
apply to ICANN.
--gregbo
