As humorous as this is, I think it effectively proves my point.
On Sun, 04 Jul 1999 00:51:31 -0400, Michael Sondow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Well, it seems I've still got more work to do on my writing style so
>that people won't get the wrong idea and think I'm being unpleasant.
>So here goes...
>
>Kent Crispin wrote:
>>
>
>Kent, ole buddy! Ya don't answer my letters! Whassamatta you (like
>Chico used ta say)? Ya got writer's cramp or somethin? Dat's what ya
>get from always tryin ta pick the quarters outta the parkin meters.
>Heh-heh, just kiddin, ole buddy. So what's up in ICANN land?
>
>> Many people are under the delusion that ICANN's bylaws and articles
>> of incorporation provide control. They do not. People also think
>> that membership and representative structures provide control. They
>> don't, either.
>
>No, huh? Gee, ya coulda fooled me. I thought that's what dat stuff
>was there for. I mean, what's the point of havin these bylaws and
>this here membership jazz if they don't mean nothin? Sounds like a
>scam, baby, like when you 'n me 'n Marty Schwimmer used ta put dem
>signs up outsida the clubhouse sayin "FREE FLOWERS 'N PERFUME
>INSIDE", ta get the girls in there, all unsuspectin like. Yeah, some
>scam, baby. Cool!
>
>> The elaborate bylaws and representative structures were implemented
>> because people insisted on it, not because they are actually
>> effective. They are not effective, and, intrinsically, they cannot
>> be effective, for the following simple reason:
>>
>> >From the point of view of the "governed" (the Internet at large) an
>> out of control ICANN board is absolutely indistinguishable from an
>> out of control ICANN membership. And given the almost inevitable
>> small size of the ICANN membership (even a few thousand would be
>> incredible) the membership is unavoidably susceptible to capture by
>> special interests, demagogues, and mob thinking. Even more, even if
>> a very large membership were created, there is simply no guarantee
>> that a large membership would be competent.
>
>Huh? What's that, Kent? Man, you lost me there. You sure are one
>fast-talkin sonuvagun, Kent, ya old two-timer. Always could twist up
>people with all that jive til they were ready ta sell ya their
>sister fer a dollar. Remember what Mickey Heltzer used ta call ya?
>King Con. Ha-ha. I'm glad ta see yer still in shape.
>"Blah-blah-blah-blah-blah", and the people cheered...hoorahhhhh!!!,
>while ole Crispy was pickin their pockets.
>
>> This may seem to be a terrible state of affairs, but in fact it is
>> largely irrelevant.
>
>You kin say that again, Kent, baby. Irrelevant is bein too kind.
>
>> The real controls over ICANN will remain governmental in nature,
>> primarily in the form of anti-trust laws. The US DoJ, the EU's
>> DG-IV, and anti-trust authorities around the world will be watching
>> ICANN very closely. ICANN is a California non-profit, so in
>> practice, US anti-trust law is the most prominent, but in fact ICANN
>> simply cannot afford to do anything that will irritate any of these
>> anti-trust authorities.
>
>Well, just one minute here. Let's see, you mean if somebody cud make
>out that this ICANN was doin stuff to stop competishin, like lettin
>secret clubs like yer CORE buddies fix prices or be the sole
>suppliers of domain names, then maybe the DOJ would come down on
>yous? Wow! Better watch out, baby. I mean, wit your record 'n all
>you don wanna go irritatin the feds, know what I mean? Specially
>after that con you 'n yer kook lawyer Maher pulled over there in
>Swissland. Better be careful, man. Those justice guys don't fool
>aroun. I hear yer CORE buddies have taken over the DNSO. Is dat
>right? 'Cause, after all, if the feds is watchin ya, dat maybe ain't
>too smart, see what I mean? Can't yous find some shills ta put in
>there, so nobody's pointin the finger at you? Ya better be cool,
>buddy, 'cause if you think I'm gonna come visit ya in Leavenworth,
>well I ain't, see? Santa Rita, maybe. Leavenworth, no way, man.
>
>> This is the fundamental oversight over ICANN. It isn't going to go
>> away, ever.
>
>Scarey, man. Ooeee! I get goose bumps when you dat.
>
>> Another common misconception, on many levels.
>>
>> Physically, of course, the A root server could be blown to
>> smithereens tomorrow.
>
>Kent, baby, be cool. Ya gotta watch dat talk. Keep yer voice down,
>will ya?
>
>> It would make headlines, but the net would not
>> notice it. That's precisely why there are more than a dozen root
>> servers -- any one of them is expendable.
>
>Pretty slick.
>
>> There are only two areas where ICANN has any potential for exertion
>> of authority 1) with small ccTLDs, and then only where the sovereign
>> entity in charge wants a change made; and 2) the possible addition of
>> new gTLDs. In all other cases ICANN's hands are tied.
>
>Oh yeah? Dats not what I heard. I heard dey was gonna put charges on
>all the names and addresses 'n make a mint. And since your CORE
>buddies is trademarkin all them TLDs, what else is ICANN gonna stick
>in their root? Ya got Mike Roberts in yer pocket, aintcha? 'N he's
>gonna be settin up the files, right? So, yeah, you got it figured
>right down to the wire. No sweat. Like you sez, who needs
>authority? Ha-ha. You kill me, baby.
--
William X. Walsh
General Manager, DSo Internet Services
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fax:(209) 671-7934
"The fact is that domain names are new and have unique
characteristics, and their status under the law is not yet clear."
--Kent Crispin (June 29th, 1999)
