On Mon, 30 Aug 1999, Karl Auerbach wrote:
> [Roberto Gaetano:]
> > That's why I was in favour of financing ICANN in a different way, like for
> > instance with a $1 fee on domain names, or with a membership fee.
>
> I'd be happy to pay the $1/name tax if I had a voice in the making of the
> policies of the Domain Name System or IP address allocation.
This is the essential point. Really it doesn't matter where ICANN gets
its money.
What matters is that ICANN is responsible to no one. The ICANN board has
no legitimacy. They were appointed by who knows who to meet who knows
what agenda. For good reason they lack the trust of the Internet
community, ICANN's only possible source of authority.
To meet calls for openness they hold rigged meetings around the world,
an itinerant mockery of us all. In Berlin, in Singapore, in Santiago
sycophants and bureaucrats, clowns and the power-mad, all the
classic enemies of the Internet dance for their favour. It's hard to
remember that this circus was supposed to replace IANA.
The fundamental objection to the $1/name Dyson tax is that that tax
gave no one any influence over the ICANN board. The objection to
ICANN's being funded by a couple of multinationals is not all that
different: it gives control of the Internet to the few.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
