Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
So here goes...
Kent Crispin wrote:
>
Kent, ole buddy! Ya don't answer my letters! Whassamatta you (like
Chico used ta say)? Ya got writer's cramp or somethin? Dat's what ya
get from always tryin ta pick the quarters outta the parkin meters.
Heh-heh, just kiddin, ole buddy. So what's up in ICANN land?
> Many people are under the delusion that ICANN's bylaws and articles
> of incorporation provide control. They do not. People also think
> that membership and representative structures provide control. They
> don't, either.
No, huh? Gee, ya coulda fooled me. I thought that's what dat stuff
was there for. I mean, what's the point of havin these bylaws and
this here membership jazz if they don't mean nothin? Sounds like a
scam, baby, like when you 'n me 'n Marty Schwimmer used ta put dem
signs up outsida the clubhouse sayin "FREE FLOWERS 'N PERFUME
INSIDE", ta get the girls in there, all unsuspectin like. Yeah, some
scam, baby. Cool!
> The elaborate bylaws and representative structures were implemented
> because people insisted on it, not because they are actually
> effective. They are not effective, and, intrinsically, they cannot
> be effective, for the following simple reason:
>
> >From the point of view of the "governed" (the Internet at large) an
> out of control ICANN board is absolutely indistinguishable from an
> out of control ICANN membership. And given the almost inevitable
> small size of the ICANN membership (even a few thousand would be
> incredible) the membership is unavoidably susceptible to capture by
> special interests, demagogues, and mob thinking. Even more, even if
> a very large membership were created, there is simply no guarantee
> that a large membership would be competent.
Huh? What's that, Kent? Man, you lost me there. You sure are one
fast-talkin sonuvagun, Kent, ya old two-timer. Always could twist up
people with all that jive til they were ready ta sell ya their
sister fer a dollar. Remember what Mickey Heltzer used ta call ya?
King Con. Ha-ha. I'm glad ta see yer still in shape.
"Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah", and the people cheered...hoorahhhhh!!!,
while ole Crispy was pickin their pockets.
> This may seem to be a terrible state of affairs, but in fact it is
> largely irrelevant.
You kin say that again, Kent, baby. Irrelevant is bein too kind.
> The real controls over ICANN will remain governmental in nature,
> primarily in the form of anti-trust laws. The US DoJ, the EU's
> DG-IV, and anti-trust authorities around the world will be watching
> ICANN very closely. ICANN is a California non-profit, so in
> practice, US anti-trust law is the most prominent, but in fact ICANN
> simply cannot afford to do anything that will irritate any of these
> anti-trust authorities.
Well, just one minute here. Let's see, you mean if somebody cud make
out that this ICANN was doin stuff to stop competishin, like lettin
secret clubs like yer CORE buddies fix prices or be the sole
suppliers of domain names, then maybe the DOJ would come down on
yous? Wow! Better watch out, baby. I mean, wit your record 'n all
you don wanna go irritatin the feds, know what I mean? Specially
after that con you 'n yer kook lawyer Maher pulled over there in
Swissland. Better be careful, man. Those justice guys don't fool
aroun. I hear yer CORE buddies have taken over the DNSO. Is dat
right? 'Cause, after all, if the feds is watchin ya, dat maybe ain't
too smart, see what I mean? Can't yous find some shills ta put in
there, so nobody's pointin the finger at you? Ya better be cool,
buddy, 'cause if you think I'm gonna come visit ya in Leavenworth,
well I ain't, see? Santa Rita, maybe. Leavenworth, no way, man.
> This is the fundamental oversight over ICANN. It isn't going to go
> away, ever.
Scarey, man. Ooeee! I get goose bumps when you dat.
> Another common misconception, on many levels.
>
> Physically, of course, the A root server could be blown to
> smithereens tomorrow.
Kent, baby, be cool. Ya gotta watch dat talk. Keep yer voice down,
will ya?
> It would make headlines, but the net would not
> notice it. That's precisely why there are more than a dozen root
> servers -- any one of them is expendable.
Pretty slick.
> There are only two areas where ICANN has any potential for exertion
> of authority 1) with small ccTLDs, and then only where the sovereign
> entity in charge wants a change made; and 2) the possible addition of
> new gTLDs. In all other cases ICANN's hands are tied.
Oh yeah? Dats not what I heard. I heard dey was gonna put charges on
all the names and addresses 'n make a mint. And since your CORE
buddies is trademarkin all them TLDs, what else is ICANN gonna stick
in their root? Ya got Mike Roberts in yer pocket, aintcha? 'N he's
gonna be settin up the files, right? So, yeah, you got it figured
right down to the wire. No sweat. Like you sez, who needs
authority? Ha-ha. You kill me, baby.
