Re: 'stakeholders' was: Re: [ga] Re: ICANN before the US Senate...

[Eric Dierker <eric@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Hence the coined phrase by someone of dotcommoner.
When you apply for a loan and have money you get the loan.
If you have no money and really need it - too bad.
funny this world.
e

> 
>> .... Even if the manager does a good job,
>> stakeholders may want to replace it with another organization ...
>   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> May I suggest that we forever drop the word "stakeholders".
> 
> That word has been used repeatedly to disenfranchise those who are 
> affected by ICANN's positions and to create privileged classes who have
>  been fortunate enough (or powerful enough) to have been anointed with
> the  attribute "stakeholder".
> 
> If truth be told, *everyone* on the planet is affected by the internet,
>  everyone has a stake in the internet.  Everyone is a "stakeholder" in
> the  internet as a whole.  The citizens and residents of a country are 
> "stakeholders" in the country code TLD of that country.
> 
> I reject the argument, an argument that is used to justify ICANN's
> structure, that certain among us are more equal than others.
> 
> There is no need to accord "intellectual property" interests, 
> "businesses", or "corporations" any special privileges by granting to
> them  the status of "stakeholder".
> 
> Intellectual property creators are all of us with minds who record our 
> thoughts.
> 
> Business is composed not only of sellers but also of buyers - of which
> we,  the people of the internet community act in both roles.
> 
> Corporations are owned by people and act through people.
> 
> The most fundamental error in all of ICANN-dom is this concept of
> "stakeholder".
> 
> That fact that many among us blithly accept that word, and the
> disadvantaged status it confers on many, and the privileged status it
> confers on a few, is very, very sad.
> 
> 		--karl--