Ellen Rony wrote:
>Nick Patience wrote:
>>Ellen hit the problem on the head when she said:
>>>
>>>"Mention ICANN and a reporter must then also describe the whole transfer of
>>>functions from NSF to NTIA,
>>from IANA to ICANN. Most readers' eyes will glaze over before you can say
>>IFWP."
>
>Sorry Nick, I still don't buy it.
>
(...)
>
>Bottom line, the story about ICANN is
>very simple: It's about the establishment
>of a governance body over the Internet, one
>that is *supposed* to reflect a bottom-up
>consensus building process, one that *isn't*!
>
>Show me *one* story written from this
>perspective that has made its way out
>to the broad audience of the general
>daily newspapers, and I'll admit that
>I was mistaken.
I agree with Ellen. I wrote an op ed for a trade paper.
I explained ICANN, all the functions, etc. in 630 words
as they said I had to do.
They said they would use the story.
Then they said rewrite it all over again in 500 words.
They gave me 10 new questions to answer and told me
I had 2 hours to do so.
I even did that. And they told me they decided *not*
to use it.
The point is that the story is being *censored* and
kept out of the U.S. press.
There are powerful forces keeping it all quiet and the
problem isn't that the story is complicated.
The problem is that what is being grabbed is big time
loot and those doing the grabbing want it done in the
dark.
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
