At 06:07 AM 7/15/99 , [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> It started with two processes to find a
>> community consensus way to self-govern the
>> Internet. The IFWP featured open meetings
>> and open discussions, with the result being
>> a set of compromise and consensus principles
>> that were reflected in multiple documents,
>> including some draft by-laws.
>>
>> The IANA process featured a small committee
>> (ITAG) working in secret with their attorney
>> (Joe Sims), and apparently with input from
>> many foreign governments and multinational
>> corporations.
>>
>> The first process was ignored, and the
>> second process was blessed with a slate
>> of Board members who appeared of a virgin
>> birth.
>>
>These few paragraphs from your text stroke me particularly.
>In fact, you seem to say that, in the end, "input from many foreign
>governments and multinational corporations" had more weight than "community
>consensus", being the latter what was achieved in the IFWP process.
>
>How can this be a surprise to you (or to anybody else)?
>Let's be clear. The IFWP process was very important, bringing a lot of
>elements of discussion on the table. Some points were very good, indeed, but
>there's no way the consensus reached by few hundreds (500?) people can be
>imposed on the whole world, overriding governments and corporations.
Hi Roberto,
I thought the whole purpose of the White Paper was to
keep Governments *out* of the administration of the Net.
And if their plan was simply to establish an ICANN in
their approved image, then why not just say so.
>In fact, somebody remembers the speech from Roger Cochetti back in Reston
>(gee, already a year ago...) about the fact that whatever direction the IFWP
>process would have taken, no proposed solution for the Internet would have
>been applied unless consented by the governments and the corporations? It
>seems a good prophecy.
He did indeed say that.
"Consented," however, implies that the governments and
corporations would work towards an *agreement* with the
proposed structure as defined by the community consensus.
That's not what happened.
Instead, we had two processes. The open one, which
was apparently to keep the rabble busy, and the closed
one, which was where the by-laws were written and the
puppet board anointed.
>I don't think that time are ready for direct democracy in the Net, which
>does not mean that we should not try, but it surely means that the good old
>method of taking the good elements to propose, building a case for them, and
>trying to convince the "decision makers", like "governments and
>corporations", may work better.
Even if we are not ready for direct democracy, we
will *never* be ready for a small, closed, secretive
group of un-elected and un-accountable board members
making decisions affecting every Netizen on the
planet.
>Moreover, considering the IFWP results as the Gospel, to be applied upon
>everybody (as some contributions to this list seem to imply), seems to me to
>be likely to produce the opposite effect.
>
>Regards
>Roberto
As many issues in this debate are, I suspect that
at least some of our differences are cultural in
nature.
While you might be comfortable with a small cabal
of Government and Corporate appointees making global
decisions for the entire, world-wide Internet, most
Americans will not be.
Here's what Esther Dyson herself wrote about this
cultural divide:
Esther Dyson in Release 1.2 wrote:
>
>The Nature of Freedom
>
>Overseas friends of America sometimes point out that the U.S.
>Constitution is unique -- because it states explicitly that power
>resides with the people, who delegate it to the government, rather
>than the other way around.
>
>This idea -- central to our free society -- was the result of more
>than 150 years of intellectual and political ferment, from the
>Mayflower Compact to the U.S. Constitution, as explorers struggled
>to establish the terms under which they would tame a new frontier.
>
>And as America continued to explore new frontiers -- from the
>Northwest Territory to the Oklahoma land-rush -- it consistently
>returned to this fundamental principle of rights, reaffirming, time
>after time, that power resides with the people.
>
>Cyberspace is the latest American frontier. As this and other
>societies make ever deeper forays into it, the proposition that
>ownership of this frontier resides first with the people is central
>to achieving its true potential.
We may have a long way to go before the
Internet achieves this lofty goal, but any
steps along the way that are inconsistent
with this philosophy are simply unacceptable.
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello
President, Iperdome, Inc.� 404-943-0524
-----------------------------------------------
What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
