Hi Jim,
Great to see you involved once again.
For the newcomers, Jim Dixon was one of the
members of the IFWP Steering Committee. He
lead the call (along with myself) for a wrap-
up meeting in Boston, which was torpedo'd
by Mike Roberts and others.
Jim and I have agreed on most issues, but
not all. In particular, Jim gets very upset
when the U.S. Government appears to assume
any authority over the Internet community,
like Congress is now preparing to do.
And even though Michael Sondow is a relative
newcomer to this debate, I believe he has this
one right.
More comments below . . .
At 11:12 AM 7/3/99 , Jim Dixon wrote:
>On Sat, 3 Jul 1999, Michael Sondow wrote:
>
>> > ICANN in its present form is an accident, a monstrosity, a thing
>> > potentially of great power, but without any practical understanding of
>> > the Internet or any vision of where it should go.
>>
>> This is a entirely erroneous analysis. ICANN is no accident. It is
>
>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.
You presume that if Jon Postel were still
alive today, ICANN would be hunky dory!
I disagree.
Jon Postel supported the IAHC, he supported
the gTLD-MoU, and by those who knew him best,
he would have supported this socialist agenda
of ICANN.
>> 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.
If you look carefully at the numbers, you will
quickly realize that they simply don't add up.
The expenditures of ICANN *must* be at least an
order of magnitude *greater* than the monies they
have supposedly received. Either ICANN has been
extended significant credit by those who believe
that they will be reimbursed once this capture of
Internet resources is complete, or they are
getting off-balance sheet funding.
Either way, the process is corrupt!
>Look down the list of contributors to ICANN. There are very few
>contributors and none has put in a great deal of money.
The list of contributors to ICANN represent big
business. The list of GAC members represent big
government. And the virtual black-out that this
debate has received in the press represents big
media.
I know it's hard to believe that a conspiracy
to take over the Internet can exist, but it
certainly is not without precedent.
For more information about this, read Gordon Cook's
summary "AT WAR FOR THE FUTURE OF THE INTERNET"
http://www.cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
>> 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.
The reality as you describe it is *not*
sufficient. The socialist agenda to take
over Internet resources keeps coming back
to life. It's like fighting a Hydra, the
mythical creature with many heads.
You can keep chopping off its head to kill
it, but until you know you are fighting a
Hydra, another head will just keep popping
up.
IMHO and FWIW,
Jay.
>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
>
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
