David and all,
David Schutt wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Roberto
> > Gaetano
> > Sent: Monday, January 04, 1999 8:05 AM
> > To: IFWP Discussion List
> > Subject: [ifwp] Individual Membership [Was: RE: How not to define
> > membership clas ses]
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > The problem is that Congress or the President don't have to take decisions
> > that impact "mainly" GM or ATT.
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but I believe Congress and the President
> originally blessed the creation of AT&T in its monopoly form, and then took
> it apart again when it was felt that form no longer served the interests of
> the people.
I doubt this David ad AT&T was created and divested over several decades.
And therefore passed through several administrations.
>
>
> > Last but not least, most of the problems and implications (technical and
> > economical) of the choices ICANN will have to make are widely
> > unknown to end
> > users, but have heavy impact on some organizations (and ultimately to the
> > whole Net). Let me try to word it out better: the individual, as an end
> > user, will only be interested in having better and cheaper service, but
> > would not even be interested in discussing what to do to get this result.
>
> Why do you think individuals would not be interested in discussing what to
> do to get the desired results?
>
> Corporations are made up of individuals. The interests of corporations will
> always be attended to by natural human beings. Corporations and other
> organizations will always have a greater ability to amplify the group
> position by nature of their collective resources, and need no special
> recognition or elevation of power.
>
> Isn't the ability of a corporation to subsidize the participation of an
> individual member sufficient to ensure that the corporate position gets fair
> exposure in the marketplace of ideas? Isn't the ability to use mass
> communications to propagandize for the corporate position an additional
> advantage?
>
> Why should an artificial, special purpose construct like a corporation be
> elevated above, or even to parity with, a natural human being?
It shouldn't be.
>
>
> > This does not mean at all that individuals that feel interested
> > or concerned
> > should not be allowed to become ICANN (or DNSO) Members, it just
> > means that
> > we cannot afford to have this one as the only constituency.
>
> I would suggest that an ICANN (or DNSO) that recognizes entities other than
> human beings as members runs a great risk of being valueless and amoral.
Well the ICANN should recognize this as they thus far have acted in something
less than a moral group thus far.
>
> This is not the kind of organization that I would like to see looking after
> a widely shared communications medium.
Agreed.
>
>
> David Schutt
>
> __________________________________________________
> To receive the digest version instead, send a
> blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To SUBSCRIBE forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, forward this message to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Problems/suggestions regarding this list? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> ___END____________________________________________
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
