"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>This and similar controversies have actually been
>going on fairly intensively over the past 40 years.
>It's the Internet and domain names right now, 15 years
>ago it was OSI names and addresses, 20 years ago
>satellite allocations, 40 years ago shortwave
>radio frequencies.
That isn't really true. There hasn't been a battle
with no coverage, having such a profound impact on
so many people and where the U.S. government is
claiming to give away key functions and policy
making rights for the Internet.
This is unprecedented.
>You inevitably end up with two camps of politicians,
>reporters, academics,...you name it. They distill
>into two diametrically opposed camps:
No there is a history and development of the Internet
that needs to provide a basis to build on, and there
are those who don't recognize that the Internet
is a human-computer-networking-internetworking system,
but who feel that they can do whatever they dream
up to the Internet.
There are those who recognize there is a need for scientific
oversight and decisionmaking regarding the Internet and
there are those who claim that the Internet is a done
deal and anything goes with it from now on.
>Common Interests:
>o Names are "public resource"
>o Limited for political reasons
No that there is a need for directories to do director functions
and for names to be used for domain name functions and that these
are different.
>o Use subject to accreditation license and regulation
No that this is an administration function like license plates
as there is a need for a globally unique IP number.
>o Dislike for-profit business models
No that for-profit business models are inappropriate for
certain things and that one has to figure out what is
needed, *not* have a religious decision made before
any examination of the problem.
>o Desires/requires managed competition
No there is an understanding among many people in the
technical and scientific communty that domain names
are not an appropriate place for any kind of "competition".
>o Seeks/accepts control for Internet governance purposes
Control of what? The IP number, protocols, etc. give
whoever controls them control over the Internet.
Thus these can only be put in hands that have a way to
deal with vested interests.
>Common Interests:
>o Names are assets/brands developed by business
>o Unlimited resource
>o Use subject to provider-customer contracts
>o Prefer for-profit business models
>o Managed by market and antitrust laws
>o Opposes control for Internet governance purposes
i
None of this has anything to do with how to administer
essential and controlling functions of the Internet.
>The first group tends to regard these as religious
>issues of principle on which there cannot be any
>compromise-only compliance with their orthodoxy.
You make it sound as if there are no other views
and that is grossly inaccurate.
>The second group tends to be more pragmatic and
>seeks to accommodate diversity.
No pragmatic at all but religious in trying to
get some piece of the pie.
>In global political forums - which is what ICANN-GAC
>has become - the first group has generally won the
>initial rhetorical and numerical popularity contests.
>The ICANN's GAC has already declared as a principle
>of their constituent governments that Internet Names
>and Addresses are the equivalent of the radio spectrum.
No the problem with the GAC is that this is secret
government activity under the guise of "private"
as outlawed in the U.S. under the government corporate
control act.
And that ICANN is *not* private but governments acting
secretly.
And more seriously there is no mechanism for scientific
decisions regarding Internet functionality.
>Because the first group is far more common outside the
>US, while the second is more common in the US. This
Not more common, just that it has more money behind
it to dominate the offline media etc.
There are citizens and a public in the U.S. though
the group "privatize" group doesn't recognize
that such exist in the U.S.
>tends to skew the results in numerical based global
>forums - which also is what ICANN-GAC have become.
>The first approach is also popular among those who want
>to manipulate economic systems for some perceived initial
>advantage. In the end, however, the paradigm shifts from
>the first to the second group because it is the only one
>that really works and maximizes the benefits of the
>associated technology.
How strange. You seem to forget Tony that the Internet
grew out of publicly funded computer science research
*not* out of any private model. And many of the corporations
that are involved in the U.S. grew out of subsidized or
start up situtions that were based on publicly funded
research and were created by government contracts.
This is a very different reality than the one you
seem to portray.
>For the moment, however, the contention will continue,
>and the Internet simply experience the same wars long
>experienced in other galaxies far, far away....
Not true. In fact many people say they would hate to live
in the U.S. given the lack of regard for people.
The Internet has given the U.S. something to be proud
of around the world and you and others with your views are
trying to quickly take that away and replace it with the dogma
that gives to a few at the expense of the many.
>--tony
The problem with what you present is that there is a real
world problem to be solved, and all views need to be examined
to try to figure out what will help to solve the problem.
And you are trying to prevent examining the very views
and understandings that can solve the probelm.
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
