Re: Shurely ...
But first a quick reply to Doctor Syntax:
> what's to stop ICANN's critics setting up their own non-profit and pitching for the contract themselves?
Pitching to who? The US Govt's claim that it owned control was weak enough in 1998 and is even weaker now. That's the wrong model. The correct model is "setting up their own nonprofit and DOING THE JOB themselves."
Now, to gerdesj:
> US.GOV (as the current sole stakeholder)...
No they aren't. The stakeholders are the names, addresses and protocol communities worldwide. And it's the names community that has completely failed to set itself up independently from ICANN. What's really going on here is that vested interests in the names community have long since captured the ICANN Board. What else could explain the egregious behaviour that Kieren reports?
> in the hands of something like the UN <hmmm>. What the hell would be acceptable to everyone on the planet?
None of those politicised organisations would be acceptable. Capture by politics is just as dangerous as capture by capitalism.
> stick with the status quo. No one (AFAICT) has ever really complained about the US holding the reigns (har har)
Actually, they have: the European Commission for one. We need it out of the hands of both politicians and capitalists.