>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Date: Thu, 15 Jul 1999 11:37:54 -0400
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: [IFWP] Re: personal attacks
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>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
>
>
--
Richard Sexton | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://dns.vrx.net/tech/rootzone
http://killifish.vrx.net http://www.mbz.org http://lists.aquaria.net
Bannockburn, Ontario, Canada, 70 & 72 280SE, 83 300SD +1 (613) 473-1719
