On Fri, May 14, 1999 at 11:53:53PM +1200, Joop Teernstra wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
> <that it was a misconception that ICANN was not a government>
> Kent intoned:
>
> >Let's see --
> >Governments have standing armies. Does ICANN?
> >Governments can put you in jail. Can ICANN?
> >Governments can have you executed. Can ICANN?
> >
> We are talking about governance of central internet functions.
Not to get lost in tedious semantics...The term "governance" which
you use, is not the same as the term "a government", which Patrick
used. You do understand the difference, I presume?
Furthermore, the use of the term "internet governance", while fairly
common, is actually something of an oddity.
We don't normally speak of "telephone system governance", or
"telecommunications" governance. We speak of "regulation". We say
"The Federal Communications regulates the airwaves", and we don't
say "The FCC governs the airwaves".
ICANN is a *private* entity that regulates a part of the Internet
infrastructure through contracts, the support of the USG and other
government, and a monopoly on a certain odd species of goodwill.
That is not what we typically mean by the word "government". When I
speak of "a government of a state like New Zealand" that conveys
something. When you speak of "a government of the Internet" we are
twisting words in a rather odd way, like saying "a government of a
telephone system". It doesn't mean anything.
Note that there are bodies like ICANN in existence in the standards
areas, and they frequently have significant power that could well be
classified as "regulatory". But we don't call them "a government",
and we don't usually call their activity "governance".
> We were also
> talking about legislation.
> Your rhetorical questions only indicate that you are in denial. Why is it
> so important to you to deny the government aspect of ICANN?
I don't know what you mean by "government aspect of ICANN". If you
mean that ICANN will have some regulatory effect, sure, but it's a
convoluted way to say it. Still doesn't make ICANN "a government".
There are a number of people who think of the Intenet as a nascent
independent state of some sort, where the "citizens" are email
personas or other cyber presences: "soon there will be untraceable
digital cash, perfect anonymity, and the governments of the world
will shrivel into irrelevance"; or other cypherpunk/libertarian
Erewhon.
A lot of would-be politicians and demagogues swarm to the faintest
smell of anything that sounds like "government". They write
passionate diatribes about liberty, justice, and representation;
create dummy organizations and join the dummy organizations of their
fellows; put up impressive web sites at the drop of a hat; attend
meetings; etc etc.
As far as these guys (and gals) are concerned, ICANN is a magnet -- a
juicy steak waiting for the grill on a hot summer day, covered with a
swarm of wasps, bees, and flies. Sometimes they are so thick you
can't even see the steak.
These net fruitcakes see ICANN as a possible springboard for their
glorious leap to fame and power. They talk about ICANN as a
government, because that is WHAT THEY WANT IT TO BE, because they see
everything in terms of the power they could have and that they
imagine ICANN to have.
They want ICANN to be a government so bad that they ignore reality.
> >The usual definition of a government is an entity that has a
> >monopoly on force. Does ICANN?
> >
> In the internet sense, yes. It can execute, jail or banish the virtual
> net-presence of a DN owner.
"In the internet sense"?? How droll. Notice how you make an
equivalence between a human life and a "virtual presence". A bullet
through the brain is equivalent to not getting the domain name you
want.
In any case, this is an argument by analogy, and a very poor
analogy, at that.
> It can kill off a registry or a registrar. It can grant or withhold
> freedoms such as running a TLD.
If I own a popsicle stand I can grant or withold the freedom of
buying a popsicle. I guess that makes me "a government in the
internet sense". Or maybe a "government in the popsicle stand
sense?" I always wanted to be a government.
> It can even grant or deny real governments souvereignty over
> "their" ccTLD's.
Film at 11. ICANN orders real governments around. I'm glad that
somewhere down in that mass of confused analogies you still keep a
notion of what a "real government" is, and even more, that you
realize that ICANN is *not* a real government.
That was my point, you know. ICANN is not a real government. It can
reflect and refract power from other entities, including governments,
but it has very little power of its own.
> >A few regulatory functions, enforced through contracts, does not
> >make a government, Patrick.
> >
> When done by an authority that has a monopoly over the rootservers, it
> does, Kent.
> Wasn't Jon nicknamed "God"?
Jon was God; ICANN is Government. I get it -- "Government" is a
*nickname* for ICANN.
> When ICANN can transform itself into an elected body, that represents the
> will of the stakeholders in net-presence, then the will of the represented
> stakeholders determines inhowfar ICANN may call itself a "government" ,i.e.
> an instrument of the netizens' self-determination.
Sorry, that simply didn't parse.
> BTW, starting with detailed regulation, resulting in faits accomplis,
> *before* this has happened, is called a coup.
No, Joop. A coup is when an *existing government* is overthrown.
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
