Greg,
> > 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.
Are you willing to go further, and say the public has a poor track
record of using its power of oversight to ensure that the agencies
that manage resources in its name do what they are supposed to?
> > 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.
>
Thats not the 'problem,' its experimental status is the result of the
problem. Whether ICANN 'succeeds' or 'fails,' the question of self-
governance properly should be directed to the Am public: are we
asleep, or what, to have let the functionaries of our Dept of
Commerce wander off into making up concepts of *governance* by
themselves? If there is something wrong with applying the
concepts we have, then let's have a proper constitutional
convention and rework them. The Internet would be an ideal 'forum'
by which to do just that -- but one begins to get the impression that
ICANN has been 'mandated' to prevent that at all costs.
Hmm, I vaguely recall the history books mentioning another Burr --
but who reads that stuff nowadays?
kerry
