From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >According to the press release announcing the White Paper, the U.S. >Government was "looking for a globally and functionally representative >organization, operated on the basis of sound and transparent processes that >protect against capture by self-interested factions, and that provides >robust, professional management. The new entity=92s processes need to be >fair, open, and pro-competitive. And the new entity needs to have a >mechanism for evolving to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet >stakeholders.=94 But press releases hide the truth, not indicate it. The White Paper was *not* a document that reflecxted the nature of the Internet nor of its users and thus is only an attack both on the Internet and its users. The Internet is a new medium of global communication. That is *not* what the White paper recognized, nor did the Framework for Electronic Commerce nor the Green paper. These documents all denied the basic function of the Internet and thus cannot represent any way to create any organization that serves the growth and development of the Internet nor of its users. My submission to the NTIA about the Green paper documented the misconception about the Internet that these government documents have at their foundation. It is online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other The problems that ICANN represents for the Internet and its users flows from the misconception of the Internet in these government documents and from the hypocritical principles and actions in creating ICANN. >Unfortunately, ICANN has yet to live up to these high ideals. For >example, many of our most closely held beliefs about governance have not >been incorporated into ICANN. Things like no taxation without >representation, due process, consent of the governed, etc. To the contrary, ICANN is exactly the reincarnation of the fact that there is no authority vested in the U.S. government to privatize IANA or the protocols process of the IETF and that the U.S. government is trying to take legitimate processes and public assets and give them away to some hidden private entities. To call such high ideals is to try to throw further sand in front of people so the effort to carry out this theft of public property and processes can be carried out. >But if history is any indication, this is not unexpected. In many ways, the White Paper is a vision for Internet Governance, much like the Declaration of Independance was a vision for U.S. Governance. How strange. The point is that the Internet has something improtant to teach about governance, which is what studying the history of the development of the Internet makes clear. See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ This is what is being covered over by the whole ICANN process. The old, i.e. the U.S. corporate models which are totally irrelvant to gain control over the Internet, are trying to take over the Internet. But the Internet is a the product of a much superior process, of a process created by computer scientists in government who were responsible and forward looking in what they were doing. And they recognized the need to let the users at the most grassroots level create the processes and forms that would function at that end of the interface for the Internet. And this has given a much more democratic and forward looking set of principles and practices than ever before in history. And all this is what the U.S. government via its creation of ICANN is trying to destroy and replace with the kind of hidden and rotten behind the scenes power plays that have is the hallmark of the vested interests who are tyring to seize control of the Internet. If ever an anti trust situation existed it is the creation of ICANN and yet the U.S. government doesn't seem to be even investigating what is happening with ICANN as the (office of Inspector General) OIG of the NSF requested happen. Ronda Write for copy of ACN9-1 about the "Battle over the Future of the Internet" write: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
