Dave,
This process is all about creating layers and layers of structures
and legal order, facilitated by trained legal minds, who try and confuse
the truth that the atomic unit about whom this power-struggle is only
entity of value is the individual person, a user. There's no need for more
layers. Every person with an interface on a computer, and net access, has
the equal right to affect the process. One more corporation creates the
incentive for more corporations, and more dominance by "things" instead of
people.
No incorporation!
Steve
T: 925-454-8624
>No. 4 !!! No Incorporation!
>
>Here's why:
>
>I originally thought that the most effective way to proceed was to spin the
>IPv4 address, DNS, and protocol functions off into completely separate and
>distinct organizations. I could not see a purpose of a single, central
>organization other than as a convenient center for political manipulation.
>Cooperation, when necessary, does not require a single center of authority.
>
>This did not come to pass. We now have ICANN, a single organization with the
>intent to become the center of authority in at least two of the three areas,
>and possibly all three.
>
>What is the purpose of completely separate and distinct advisory
>organizations? Why not participate directly in the organization that is
>seeking to be the final authority on the subject matter?
>
>There are two immediate consequences to this. First, if it wishes, ICANN can
>completely escape any responsibility that should accompany its authority. It
>can lay responsibility on the DNSO for a decision, and focus discontent on
>an organization that does not have the authority to implement its decisions!
>Second, should a DNSO make decisions that prove to be unpopular with the
>leadership of ICANN, ICANN has the ability to modify or outright ignore the
>recommendations.
>
>This is a recipe for disaster. Separate incorporation will guarantee
>redundancy, inefficiency, and conflicts over the proper seat of authority.
>
>Who benefits from a structure that would be designed to increase conflict
>and confusion?
>
>An even better question, what is the benefit to the ****DNSO**** of separate
>incorporation?
>
>
>I know of none.
>
>David Schutt
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
>> Roberto Gaetano
>> Sent: Friday, January 08, 1999 12:23 PM
>> To: 'DNSO open list'
>> Subject: Incorporation or not?
>>
>>
>> Folks,
>>
>> Now that the heat seems to drop, I would like to satisfy a curiosity of
>> mine.
>>
>> How do we feel about DNSO to incorporate?
>>
>> IMHO, we have several types of possible positions, of which the
>> following is
>> an example.
>>
>> 1. I am completely in favour of incorporation
>> 2. I feel likewarm about it, but I can live with it
>> 3. I have no clue
>> 4. I am completely against incorporation
>>
>> <snip>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>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____________________________________________
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
