[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kerry Miller) > When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public > hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled. I doubt it. The FCC has a rather poor track record of regulating shared public resources in the public interest as of late. If you think domain names have caused a lot of controversy, read some of the debates regarding low power FM, cable (de)regulation, HDTV, etc. > The problem is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally > mandated entity, and the question is, Why? ICANN is an experiment in Internet self-governance. If it fails, then there will most likely be some federally mandated entities created to do what ICANN is doing. --gregbo
- [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ... Kerry Miller
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People ... Greg Skinner
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or People... A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or Pe... Greg Skinner
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or Pe... Bill Lovell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government o... Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in governm... Bill Lovell
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in gov... Michael Sondow
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or Pe... Mark Measday
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government o... A.M. Rutkowski
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in governm... Dave Crocker
- Re: [IFWP] Re: Sovereignty in government or Pe... Dave Crocker
