Hi,

Interesting piece.  Not sure I agree with all of it, but one line is resoundingly strong:

> The time for pretending that lobbyists for domain name companies are "multistakeholders" is over.


Of course since they control governments, especially the US government, one wonders where the hope is to be found.

Though I think that the domain name companies should perhaps be among the stakeholders, it is wrong that they and their fellow travelers hold more then 90% of the power in the GNSO.

avri

On 5 Sep 2011, at 16:35, Alex Gakuru wrote:

> By Michael Roberts
> Sep 05, 2011
> 
> The leaked release of the European Commission's working papers on the
> future of Top Level Domains highlights the impending collision between
> adherents of the present "multistakeholder" ICANN governance model,
> and an ever longer list of national governments who challenge that
> model.
> 
> At the core of the controversy is the question of how ICANN can claim
> legitimacy in the DNS world when none of its Directors or Officers are
> elected. Even worse, its only answer, when challenged legally, is that
> it is responsive to its contract with an agency of the U.S.
> Government, which agency claims authority from the elected Congress of
> the United States through the agency's organic act, which nowhere
> mentions the Internet, ICANN, or the Domain Name System
> ....
> http://www.circleid.com/posts/20110905_icanns_unelected_crisis/
>