Jim Dixon wrote (in continuation):
>
> 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.
Not true. If you look at who is running all the structures of ICANN
you see clearly that it is a put-up job. Every element of a planned
conspiracy is in place. ICANN is a classical illegally-constructed
special interest trade association, created and controlled by an
organized cartel for the purpose of controlling and constraining
commerce.
> 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.
Their funding level has absolutely nothing to do with it. It isn't
ICANN itself that needs funding or which will profit unjustly from a
regulatory environment that benefits those who run it, it is they,
as separate enterprises. And an interim budget of $6 million is
nothing to sneeze at. That will, of course, be greatly augmented
when the IP address fees come into play. But regardless, it is not
the function of a trust to earn money; their function is to create
restricted conditions of trade and commerce that benefit their
members. Every trsust and combine that has been broken up by the DOJ
under the antitrust laws has functioned in this way. They need no
more than an office and a secretarial staff, really. And of course,
some mechanism for restraining free trade.
> Look down the list of contributors to ICANN. There are very few
> contributors and none has put in a great deal of money.
They have put in enough to pay the lawyers and PR people, and the
office staff. That is sufficient for their purposes.
> We don't need this. We don't need a secret cabal formed by all-powerful
> dark forces.
They are not secret. Their names are ISOC, CORE, and certain
government-controlled telcos.
> The reality is sufficient: ICANN was formed by a secret
> process and continues to cloak its proceedings in secrecy.
There is no longer any secret about the process that resulted in
this board. They were chosen by Roger Cochetti and Vint Cerf, the
representatives of IBM and MCI, through the medium of Joe Sims, the
point man for Jones Day, the corporate lawfirm with which Cochetti,
Cerf, and the DOC have cooked this all up.
> 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.
All true. But not enough to stop them. Everyone is incompetent to
some degree, and no one in the Internet is, by themself, capable of
administering it, which is why no honest member of the Internet
community would try to do so. It is the dishonest and self-seeking
ones who have banded together to manipulate the Internet. Simply
put, the Internet could just as well continue its successful
trajectory with no NewCo, relying on a few simple legislative
actions to straighten out what isn't working quite right. Who would
think to create a bureaucracy to regulate the Internet? Only a group
of people who had something to gain from it.
