> Since then it has been run by lawyers in complete secrecy
It seems that HN wants to help them with that. There isn't a single name in this entire thread.
Why aren't we talking about the board members here? Why aren't we using their real names so that they can be personally held responsible for their decisions?
Every single board member has to go. Every single one of them. At this point, it would be easier to just transfer over all the assets incl the PIR to an organization that is more worthy of our trust, such as the EFF.
> It was for this reason that the board voted unanimously to approve the deal (aside from one trustee who is recused from PIR matters).
> At this point, it would be easier to just transfer over all the assets incl the PIR to an organization that is more worthy of our trust, such as the EFF.
That would certainly work in the short term.
In the long term however, wouldn't the EFF become a magnet for the types of people currently populating the ICANN board? They see that there is an opportunity there. So I worry that the long term effect would be to ruin the EFF as it is slowly overrun by opportunist that do not care about the core mission.
Not sure what a good long term solution is however.
It would become a magnet. However, given the broader membership base and their history, I think it would be harder to take over something like the EFF or e.g. the mozilla Foundation (and before you yell "browser maker, conflict of interest" at me, I have a .dev domain to sell to you...).
The ISOC, while they proudly proclaim 67K members, is an organization with largely silent/inactive members (aside from lobbyists), most of whom probably forgot by now that they are members at all - or at least that's what it seems to be from my perspective.
The EFF (or even mozilla) on the other hand have more active members, and it would be harder to do a (slow-moving) hostile takeover. Of course, everything can be undermined and taken over, as the ISOC shows. However, the ISOC seems "burned" at this point where it would be extremely hard to rebuild and recover, while the EFF e.g. is still functional and it would be easier to keep it from deteriorating in the first place than trying to undo damage already done.
>and before you yell "browser maker, conflict of interest" at me, I have a .dev domain to sell to you...
I was about to start ranting about Google, but it appears that they are now allowing public .dev registrations through registrars. I don't know when that changed.
It seems that HN wants to help them with that. There isn't a single name in this entire thread.
Why aren't we talking about the board members here? Why aren't we using their real names so that they can be personally held responsible for their decisions?