I sent this to the icann-membership list but also felt it should
go to the IFWP list, so am sending there as well.
Ronda
Jeff Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Esther and all,
> It is indeed true the the INTERIM BOARD is of international origin,
>and with the exception of Mike Roberts, most live outside of
>California. This however does NOT in any fashion make the ICANN
>and international organization in law or in fact. It only makes SOME
>of the INTERIM BOARD members, citizens of other countries, nothing
>more. Nor at this point in time is the ICANN even remotely considered
>and INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION as Esther Dyson contends.
If some members of a Board of Directors live in other countries and
are citiziens of other countries, but that has *NOTHING* to
do with the person being international or the corporation
they are board members of being international.
This is indeed a falsification to claim that if someone is
a citizen a country other than the U.S. and is on the board
of directors of a U.S. corporation, that this corporation becomes
an International Organization, as Esther Dyson claims.
>To do so the iCANN must by international treaty and US law, become
>registered and an international organization, which to my knowledge,
>and after checking with the U.N., has yet to do as they are not completely
But an international organization is very different from a private
corporation which is being formed in the U.S.
An International organization has to do with some agreement among
different nations, and especially the governments of different
nations.
The whole point of the U.S. Green Paper and White paper were to
exclude any open government participation in ICANN and thus
to exclude that it could be an international organization.
Instead it is the worst aspects of a private corporate organization
as it denies the behind the scenes maneveurs by th U.S. government
and others.
>constituted to do without a membership organization defined,
>which is what this forum is all about....
No membership organization can change the fact that ICANN is
*not* an international organization, unless that membership
organization is one of governments representing nations.
And since the Green and White paper and ICANN exclude representatives
of nations or governments, there is *no* possibility of ICANN
being an international organization.
Thus what is ICANN?
It seems it is a U.S. government created commercial entity to
give control over the Internet and some of its most valuable
and controlling assets to some private sector entities.
And any membership in this subterfuge is only to cover up what
the subterfuge is all about.
The real question that has to be raised with regard to ICANN
is what is the proper government role for the U.S. and for
other governments in its creation and oversight and control.
And that is a difficult question to answer since the U.S.
government hasn't a clue of the proper government role in
the U.S. portion of the Internet and has excluded the question
of either the proper government role in the U.S. portion or
in the worldwide internet from being discussed.
This was the question that the Internet solved in its birth
and development, but that solution is being excluded from
the discussion of how to scale the Internet.
That is what my proposal to Magaziner and then the NTIA was
about as it built on how various nations solved the problem
of the proper government role to create an international
Internet.
> We (INEGroup) fine this contention that Esther is making that the
>ICANN is an international organization to be misleading and disingenuous
>to those on this forum, and would kindly request that she discontinue
>such comments in the future...
I agree that Esther's statement is misleading, but she has been
chosen for the board because she is willing to make such statements.
She has *not* been chosen to try to unravel the mess that has
created ICANN and has made no effort to do so.
This is why the Interim Board is only harmful to the solving of
the genuine problems that face the Internet at this time.
,
To be helpful Esther and the others on the Interim Board would have
to be willing to be honest and try to figure out where this mess
called ICANN has come from, and especially why *no* assets belonging
to the public of any nation/s should be transferred to a private
corporation created in such a dishonest manner where all the real
issues are hidden.
> It may be that the ICANN will become an international organization in the
>future. This of course remains to be seen at this juncture. It may also
It can't become an International Organization as it excludes all
that is needed to be an International Organization.
>be that the NTIA, will approve the ICANN for the transfer of the central
>resources to the ICANN a well should this ICANN INTERIM Board
The NTIA has no authority to approve such a transfer of billions
of dollars of public assets to ICANN, but that is what it has
created ICANN to do. However, that was not stated in the Green
paper or White paper but hidden behind other confusing language.
As it has no authority to do such transfers, it is only creating
a cherade by pretending that it can do such and thus harming
the Internet in very serious ways.
The central functions of the Internet need protection from commercial
and private entities. They need to be able to function in
a non commercial environment where they can be carried out in
a manner respecting the autonomy of the nations and networks
that are part of the Internet.
The commercenet that the U.S. is planning or that other nations
are planning, requires the continuation of the Internet as the
underlying infrastructure. The Internet is an internetting of
networks around the world. It depends on the respect for the
autonomy of those networks.
A commercenet is intended to try to dominate over other commercenets.
It is a particular. It is where it seems nations try to promote
their own big corporate entities at the expense of other corporate
entities.
A commercenet is fundamentally different from an Internet.
If the Internet is harmed, there can be *no* commercenets.
There can be something like a compuserve, or a prodigy, or
any other individual private commercial network. But there
can't be any linking of them as there is now via the Internet.
Also the commercenet is a particular, and it has been
substituted for the general which is the Internet.
No problem can be solved by looking at the particular and excluding
the general.
>be able to garner reasonable consensus and formulate a Individual
>Membership Organization which is required in the NTIA's White Paper
There can be no reasonable consensus as the whole of the non commercially
interested networks and people of the Internet are excluded and
ignored in these discussions.
The only consensus being asked for is that of those with a
commercial interest.
Thus this is a very narrow segment of people and is a sect
that leaves out the great number of Internet users who depend
on the Internet and contribute to it as a communications medium.
>and as part of the memorandum of Understanding with the NTIA,
>as stated in the proposed ICANN bylaws. This has not yet occurred
>however. This decision will be determined by YOU the stakeholder/user...
Only when the real questions begin to be raised can the real
solutions to any real problems be found.
Right now the ICANN-NTIA secret dealings can only be creating
problems, and the Berkman Institute should be helping to
uncover what is happening as that is its ethical obligation,
rather than helping to cover up the subterfuge of grabbing
the public resources for hidden private purposes and interest,
which is what is being done by ICANN and the NTIA at the moment.
I have a draft paper at http://www.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/internet.txt
I am in the process of revising it so welcome comments on it as
soon as possible. But it raises some of the real issues that are
being covered up by what is happening with the NTIA and ICANN and
the U.S. timetable for privatizing the Internet. And the paper
proposes what is needed in place of the subterfuge being carried
out.
>
> 09:32 PM 15/01/99 -0500, Michael Sondow wrote:
> >Esther Dyson a �crit:
> >>
> >> We have an international board, we will have an
> >> international membership,
> >> and we are an international organization.
(...)
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
__________________________________________________
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____________________________________________
