For god's sake, Ronda, if you're going to post, will you please do
it correctly? I did NOT write what you attribute to me, below!
Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> 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some manner, or whether the concession can be equally easily withdrawn).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
