Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Nick Patience wrote:
>If they want a comment from me they can cut and paste jay fenellos
>first internet civil way item in the comment space, or they can have
>the following from an earlier private message this morning. As you
>know Nick, this issue is bloody complicated and not amenable to the
>simplistic treatment barret would like to whitewash it with.
Actually the issue isn't "complicated" it's just that it has
to be treated openly and honestly and with a studied approach.
The problem is more that control over the Internet is at stake
and thus there are those interests out to grab for themselves
all they can get, rather than having any concern with the
Internet and its users.
The real issue underlying all this is that the essential functions
of the Internet like the domain name system, IP numbers, protocols,
etc are just those functions, that not only are a form of
centralized control over the Internet and its users, they are
also just those functions that are crucial to the scaling and
growth of the Internet. They need to be handled with the greatest
protection and scientific judgement, rather than by any of the
conflict of interest maneuvers of the so called "market".
They have been under the control of the public and that's where they
belong. ICANN is *not* the public, but an ill conceived and
fraudulent entity created to take ownership and control of
these essential functions away from the public and to put
it into the hands of an irresponsible entity.
The essential functions of the Internet have to be under the
ownership and control of a public entity, and one where the
scientific concerns for the functioning of the Internet are
in control, rather than some short term private interest
concerns.
>comment
>if the internet is to be homogenized or globalized under uniform laws
>and controls, let it be done openly and honestly and NOT under the
>guise of setting up ICANN to bring competition into dns and protect
>us from evil NSI...... although I must say i have become almost as
>disgusted with the absence of apparent leadership from Jim Rutt at
>NSI as with Esther and Mike.
The Internet needs standards to function - so to talk about it
being "homogenized or globalized" fails to look at what makes
it possible for it to function.
According to such views, it would have been impossible to have
ever created the Internet. But it wasn't *impossible* at all.
And the Internet spread. So there are principles that the Internet
represents and helps spread that are the kind of principles that
are needed, and they aren't "uniform laws and controls".
But these have to do with the Internet primarily as a communication
medium, and with other functions such as commerce, or education,
or medical uses all in the framework of it as a communication
medium.
To spread the Internet, it is crucial that its general nature
be kept primary. Those trying to end the Internet and instead
substitute substitute some so called "commerce net" in its
place or telephone system in its place, will run up against
lots of difficulties as they will have lost the thrust of
the basic functionality as a communication medium, which makes
it possible to spread and grow the Internet.
>and PS the image of DoC beating people up with the white paper is
>just too funny for words since when this lands in court commerce will
>be shown to have been acting without legal authority.
The NSF could involve the commerce dept in the administration
of the Internet but *not* give away its authority to the commerce
dept.
The White Paper is without authority, because the Internet is *not*
something belonging to the world of e-commerce. It is a communication
medium, and the White paper ignored that.
I agree with Gordon that the commerce dept has been acting without
authority in all it is doing.
Congress has frequently asked them under what authority they are
acting. All they have given is the authority of the NSF to function
with other departments of govt. Or they have given the law that
lets them write contracts. But none of this is the authority for
them to give away something that is public.
The Office of Inspector General of the NSF stated the authority
that the NSF had for its oversight of the domain name system.
That was a legitimate basis. There has been no such statement
by the Dept of Commerce despite the repeated request by
Congress.
At the July 22 hearing in Congress, one of the Congressmen asked
if the Congress had to suspend the authorization of the NTIA
because of their abuse with what is happening in this situation.
And Becky Burr wouldn't testify, but she had the lawyer for
the Commerce Dept testify instead.
And when asked by a Congressman why they hadn't anticipated
the problems in setting up ICANN, such as the fact of no
way to fund it that is legitimate, there was no response.
>At 12:46 PM -0400 8/11/99, Nick Patience wrote:
>>There is a comment option on the site, I'm surprised it's still empty :)
>
>>http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/321/0,7091,68185-new,00.html
The article merely tried to gain sympathy for Esther Dyson's
lack of any honesty or concern for the Internet in the role
she is playing.
>> >>>http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2311649,00.html
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
