At 06:35 AM 4/13/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>I think the notion of any worldwide body regulating spam or porn or content,
>which should be regulated within commmunities, is scary. These are not
>issues that need to be decided on a worldwide basis.
Hi Esther,
The U.S. Government doesn't *need* to study the
mating habits of earth worms . . . but it does!
By the same token, ICANN is *already* making
regulatory decisions on a worldwide basis.
More below . . .
>Esther
>
>At 03:46 AM 12/04/99 -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
>>
>>FYI:
>>
>>>Date: Sun, 11 Apr 1999 13:27:00 -0400
>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>Subject: Re: [IFWP] COMMENTS ON M.A.C. RECOMMENDATIONS of MARCH 18
>>>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>>At 05:08 AM 4/11/99 , Ellen Rony wrote:
>>>>IMHO, a membership that is all-inclusive moves ICANN closer to center stage
>>>>as a governance body -- a thought which makes me shudder. While we know
>>>>that ICANN was established *solely* as an administrative body for the DNS,
>>>>I can imagine that a universal, no-barrier membership body may have
>>>>different assumptions or expectations of ICANN's corporate role -- turning
>>>>to it for complaints about spam and porn and copyright infringement, none
>>>>of which are issues for ICANN. ,
>>>
>>>Hi Ellen,
>>>
>>>ICANN has *always* been about Internet Governance.
>>>
>>>Even while the White Paper and Ira Magaziner were
>>>talking about the "administrative management of
>>>coordinated technical functions for the Internet,"
>>>Larry Irving and Ira Magaziner were talking about
>>>the establishment of Internet Governance! (It
>>>just depended on the audience ;-)
Here's one example of what I am talking about:
>>>ICANN is already taking far reaching positions on
>>>Intellectual Property ownership and rights, and
So while you imply that ICANN will not become
a global regulatory body, I am not encouraged.
And I still believe that . . .
>>>it's
>>>only a matter of time before they tackle issues like
>>>spam, porn, etc.
>>>
>>>We'd all be better off if we just accept this
>>>fact, and respond accordingly.
For the most part, I agree with Tamar:
"The Internet also must have a structure. The structure
requires some governance--central authority to establish
the rules of the game. The important decision is where to
draw the line, and avoid standards that are not necessary
for the creation of successful markets. Same issue is true
of ICANN." (I would have also included "process" as a
critically important decision.)
In other words, I'm not opposed to some *limited*
global standards, if they are necessary, and if they
are set through some fair and defined process :-)
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.�
404-943-0524� http://www.iperdome.com
