Mark Measday <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Michael Sondow wrote:
>Your editorializing seems at variance with the text. Surely the text
>should be read as follows, namely that, at face value, the admission
>that the Australian government and others are willing to concede
>sovereignty to an international private organization, rather than the
>treaty organization model most commonly used for international
>agreements gives strong grounds to believe that governments want to find
>an efficient compromise between the rule of law, i.e. the de facto
>nation state expression of sovereignty, and the borderless economic
>advantages of ecommerce enabled by a free internet.
The experience of many years is that once the law is ignored at
whim by those with power than very serious bad consequences are
the result, often economic collapse of one sort or other.
Governments are *not* sovereign - at least in the U.S. the people
maintain sovereignty and the government is obligated to do what
they have authority to do and not more or otherwise.
The U.S. government doesn't have the authority to create private
corporations to assume government powers. This is forbidden
by law and by the constitution as well.
This is what the U.S. is dragging other nations into, and I realize
that some other government are encouraging this as well, but it
bodes ill for nations and people around the world.
And to blame this on ecommerc and a so called "free internet"
is the height of hypocrisy.
This is setting up a situation where monopolies created by
or favored by the U.S. government and its crony's are being
enriched at the expense of the people of the world and of
the people of the U.S.
>ICANN is by no means the only forum where (liberal) governments have
>taken this position and, while it is clear that a sound bite concession
>of sovereignty is by no means as binding as one recognised under some
>international statute or treaty, it is a freely made concession
>deserving of better treatment. (I appreciate it is not clear what legal
>basis Mr Twomey has for conceding sovereignty on behalf of the
>governments for which he speaks, whether they will formalize this in
>>some manner, or whether the concession can be equally easily withdrawn).
What other forums is this being done in?
And ICANN is *not* a forum, but a power play of the grossest nature.
>The interesting thing is that these governments must grapple with the
>theoretical advantages of free trade in ideas and goods, to some degree
>implying loss of executive control and with further implications for
>cultural dilution vs economic gain. It is surely indicative that
>Australia, one of the few autarkic nations with no real land borders or
>historical cultural relationship with its neighbours should take the
>lead in this area. Calls for the disappearance of government from the
>process are misplaced.
What kind of "free trade in ideas or goods" when the central
point of control of vital functions of the Internet are being
put in hands that have no oversight and no responsibility to
anything but their own self enrichment?
>MM
>>Michael Sondow wrote:
>> Twomey gets eminent world Internet post
>> By MARK HOLLANDS
>
>> 9feb99
>
>> "I am surprised to be asked to take up the position. I see it as a
>> coup for the Australian Internet industry and current government
>> policy," he said.
>
>> [Translation: "We've got government censorship now in Australia, and
>> you're gonna have it soon everywhere else, whether you like it or
>> not!"]
>
>> The council, which has only an advisory role to ICANN, was not a
>> paper tiger, he said. "Its teeth come from the sovereignty of the
>> governments that participate on the committee. However, we do
>> concede authority to ICANN, which is an international private
>> organisation."
There is no sovereignty of governments - that is like the concept
of soverignty of kings. It is the sovereignty resides in the
people, at least in the U.S. So this is government being usurper
of that sovereignty and doing it as secret activities is therefore
no surprise.
No one knows who is on the Government Advisory Committee of
ICANN, what they do or why.
This is setting an example for governments to act in secret
abusing the people they are supposedly serving.
Secret government activity like ICANN is based on is the worse
kind of abuse of citizens around the world.
It is a backwards step to be sure in human society.
The Internet was created by open government support for scientific
work by the scientific community.
This is an effort to destroy the Internet, not to bring anything
good to anyone but the most powerful.
>
>> [Translation: "With us pushing down from the top, and the ITU
>> pushing up from underneath, we're gonna squeeze yer old Internet til
>> it busts, har-har-har."]
It sort of seems like there is a plan afoot to use ICANN to replace
the ITU. Is that what underlies all this maneuvering?
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
