Jim Dixon wrote:
>
> Unless you are suggesting than Jon Postel's death was no accident,
> then you are simply wrong. Postel was supposed to be ICANN's brain.
> Take away the brain and you get the shambling farce that we have
> today.
No. Postel wanted no part of any added responsibilities, as his
behavior in regard to the IAHC demonstrates. He was willing to go
along with Vint Cerf, Don Heath, CORE, and the ITU, because he
couldn't see an alternative that would allow him to retain his
position, but it wasn't he who was looking for power in the NewCo,
it was they. Postel wanted nothing to do with politics, as is clear
from his own avoidance of responsibility with regard to the ccTLD
delegations, and his acceptance of the imposition of Joe Sims as
IANA's attorney. Jon Postel was used. The only difference his death
makes is that the ICANN conspirators no longer have a handy
front-man and are reduced to pushing the like of Esther Dyson into
the public view in place of Jon Postel.
> > the carefully laid plan of a coalition lead by the big Internet
> > businesses that control ISOC (MCI and IBM primarily) together with a
> > combine of second-tier telcos and registrars in CORE. These people
> > know everything about the Internet. Many were involved in its
> > creation. ICANN is their political creation and cover for taking
> > control, or taking back control, of a runaway successful Internet
> > that has gotten out of their hands and threatens their continued
> > businesses.
>
> I know how much fun this sort of conspiracy theory is. But if you
> look carefully at the numbers, there is nothing to back up the
> theory.
>
> ICANN's annual budget wouldn't warrant five minutes of discussion
> at an IBM board meeting. The kind of funding ICANN gets is the
> kind of discretionary spending that middle level managers have for
> marketing budgets, the kind of money that goes into sponsoring
> _single_ trade shows.
>
> Look down the list of contributors to ICANN. There are very few
> contributors and none has put in a great deal of money.
>
> > All these naive statements about ICANN being an "error" or an
> > "accident" just play into their hands. It's what they want you to
> > think, which is why Joe Sims and Becky Burr repeated over and over
> > in the hearings last October, and repeat ad infinitem until you
> > weaken and start to believe them, that the selection of the Board
> > was indiscriminate.
>
> I haven't suggested that the selection of the board was indiscriminate.
> What I have said is that ICANN lacks all legitimacy because of the
> way in which the board was selected.
>
> > that has conspired to gain control of the Internet infrastructure.
> > That goes as well for the GAC, the Root Server Advisory Committee,
> > the DNSO constituencies, the Names Council, and every other
> > structure within ICANN. They are not comprised of a representative
> > cross-section of international Internet interests. They are all,
> > every one of them, directly controlled by members of the team that
> > has conspired to put ICANN in place.
>
> We don't need this. We don't need a secret cabal formed by all-powerful
> dark forces. The reality is sufficient: ICANN was formed by a secret
> process and continues to cloak its proceedings in secrecy. It has no
> mandate from the Internet community. There is no legal basis for its
> claims of vast authority. Its board as a group knows precious little
> about the Internet. We don't need 007 and Blofeld to explain what's
> going on. Simple incompetence, no legitimacy, no authority for their
> actions -- that should do nicely.
>
> --
> Jim Dixon Managing Director
> VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Member of Council Telecommunications Director
> Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
> http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
> tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
