The Internet and The Economy are very much the same, in that both are
controlled from their edges, where individuals and companies all make
local decisons about product and service purcahses and offereings,
though some influence is applied with some Intergovernmental Treaties
and Central Banks and Legistlation which provide general policy and
general rules in a framework of laws, but not with regulation of local
decisions at the edges. (e.g., where to look for DNS ROOT SERVICE).
So, the Internet is not in need of a Government any more than the
Economy is in need of having a "Government";-)...
Lets stop talking about a Constitution and Bill of Rights for the
Internet. It makes no more sense than does a Constitution and Bill of
Rights for the global economy!
After a century of wars with the killing of many millions of people
over the great question of who should "control the global economy",
lets not now apply that logic to The Internet. It only took a full
century to learn not to try to control free markets and econoimies
with centralized governmental institutions.
We do not need a Government of the Internet any more than we need a
Government of the Economy.
The problem we now have is that:
1. The US Government has created a market structure failure by
ineptly allowing the DNS gTLD names space to be arbitrarily
restricted in size (only 3 useful names), thus creating an dire
artificial shortage of desireable DNS names, and with the US Govt
Contract in place with NSI, ther US Govt is entirely responsible
for creating and maintaining the NSI monopoly. No one other than
the US Govt can remedy the current situation, which can only be
remedied by opening up the gTLD name space. Resterictive
regulation of NSI as a monopoly by the US Govt or any
International Intergovernmental Body is not going to solve any of
the problems.
2. Competing Registrars, all selling names in the same restricted and
servely cramped .com, .org, .net names spaces will not solve any
of the problems that arise from the lack of product in the gTLD
name space. Regulating the gTLD registrars will not increase the
supply of gTLD names! The monoply is caused by lack of supply!
3. So, we are now being seduced into jabbing at NSI while the problem
continues to fester under control of the US Govt, aided and
abetted with support from ICANN which is salivasting over the
opportunity to become the Global Regulator of the use of all names
in the Internet.
It is time for us all to wake up to the nonesense that is now being
passed for "Enlightened Internet Governance"! Lets just solve the
primary market structure problem and get out of the need for
regulation.
Cheers...\Stef
>From your message Mon, 22 Mar 1999 08:13:12 -0700:
}
}Charges of monopoly abuses make us question
}the powers that be, and the rules governing them.
}The stakes are great in the cyberspace land rush.
}Open competition will help only if the playing field
}is level. Again and still, we need an open Internet
}constitution with a bill of rights & responsibilities.
}Our global network needs interactive democracy.
}
}Ken Freed
}Media Visions Webzine
}http://www.media-visions.com
}
}
}
}>For years now, companies like Iperdome and
}>IO Design have been calling for competition
}>in the name space. Not fake competition, at
}>the "registrar" level, but real competition,
}>at the "registry" level.
}>
}>Instead, many have attempted to devolve NSI's
}>monopoly through rules, regulations, and all
}>sorts of other machinations. Now, people
}>are complaining about the results.
}>
}>Competition *will* address these complaints.
}>How many more years must we wait?
}>
}>Respectfully,
}>
}>Jay Fenello
}>President, Iperdome, Inc.
}>404-943-0524 http://www.iperdome.com
}>
}>
}>At 02:56 PM 3/21/99 , Robert Raisch wrote:
}>>I call for the immediate re-evaluation of Network Solutions contract and a
}>>further hastening of the creation of an infrastructure of competitive
}>>registrars. Each moment we delay in doing so only furthers Network Solutions
}>>iron grip on the market, causing irreparable damage to competition.
}>>
}>>What is most egregous about this recent action is that by bundling further
}>>services in e-commerce, web, and e-mail hosting, with their existing domain
}>>name registration services, Network Solutions seeks to leverage its current
}>>market monopoly position unfairly against those providing the same services
}>>but lacking government-sanctioned control of the market. This is why
}>>unchecked monopolies are so dangerous.
}>>
}>>Futhermore, Network Solutions seeks to butress its shaky future market
}>>position by taking acts today contrived to confuse the consumer into
}>>believing
}>>it *is* the Internic. As such, this recent highjacking of the Internic is
}>>nothing but simple theft, since I - and every other U.S. taxpayer - paid for
}>>the creation of Internic's brand value, now held hostage.
}>>
}>>It is plain to me that we must act quickly to quell this rape of the market.
}>>If we do not, we sanction Network Solution's further market entrenchment; one
}>>built so firmly and rigidly into the existing infrastructure as to
}>>effectively
}>>destroy any possibility for real competition.
}>>
}>>This is yet another of the dangers I spoke of in 1993, at the 26th IETF
}>>meeting in Colombus, Ohio, when Internic was formed and Network Solutions was
}>>handed this power by our government.
}>>--
}>>Robert Raisch, Internet Hired Gun <http://www.raisch.com>
}>>First snow, then silence-This thousand dollar screen-dies so beautifully.
}
}
