At 04:01 PM 6/11/99 -0400, you wrote:
And Bill Lovell is now writing: Here, here! Tony has (finally? --
sorry, Tony!) said something. Expect the whole shootin' match
to be taken over by the FTC. :-)
Bill Lovell
>
> At 01:36 PM 6/11/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
>>
>> 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 FCC has actually had an excellent record. First it
> enabled the Internet to emerge through the Computer trilogy
> basic-enhanced dichotomy and by removing government
> regulatory agencies from the scene. It is also in independent
> regulatory agency (as opposed to being beholden to the whims
> of the Executive Branch) that has a solid track record of
> largely seeking effective industry and marketplace solutions.
>
> (And yes, I worked there in various official capacities for 12
> years.)
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> The FCC is unlikely to have ever created an abomination like
> ICANN and its intergovernmental body within - the GAC. This
> is hardly Internet self-governance. It's homecoming for all
> the old OSI crowd who are intent on creating a neo UN body
> to help "manage" the Internet through regulatory edicts that
> governmental bodies themselves couldn't promulgate.
>
>
> --tony
