Jim Dixon wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > I don't know if this is good or bad, but I continue to be amazed at the > > small-time nature of corporate participation in these developments. > > > > A US telecom carrier spent more than $5 million on a statewide campaign to > > reduce access charges in the state of Nebraska (pop. 3 million). Or take a look > > at what Bell Atlantic spends annually on litigation and lobbying related to one > > state--any state. > > It's the kind of money we got from sponsors for a one-day conference > EuroISPA held last June. That is, I agree. This is small change, > the kind of money regional sales managers can spend fairly casually > on PR projects. > > It suggests to me that GIP's support comes from a handful of upper-middle > level managers at a few companies who can't get their boards to approve > any real funding. > > > Certainly GIP (IBM) and MCI (via the Vint Cerf connection) are involved. But > > these pittances can hardly be presented as a corporate takeover. This looks > > more like the contribution level I'm expecting to get for an internship program > > here at Syracuse. > > > > As strongly as I dislike ICANN, it is because the people running it have the > > wrong ideas and support the wrong policies. It is not because of this stuff. > > > > Is there something I'm missing here? > > No. It's just more evidence of lack of support for ICANN. > > > Jim Dixon wrote: > > > > > > + Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000 > > > > + IBM, $25,000 > > > > + MCI Worldcom, $25,000 > > > > + Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000 > > > > + Paul D. Stauffer, $1,000 > > > > + Symantec, $15,000 > > > > + UUNET, $25,000 > > > > > > Just to make things a wee bit clearer, both MCI Worldcom and UUnet > > > are owned by Worldcom. So Worldcom is covering 38% of the bills. > > I wasn't suggesting any vast conspiracy, just pointing out that ICANN's > basis of support was even narrower than it appeared. >
