At 02:54 PM 8/17/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>Doesn't the existence of this article disprove your hypothesis?
I've never heard of intellectualcapital.com!
Have you?
At 12:38 PM 7/20/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>Media bias is not something that is inherent in
>any one article, any more than the effectiveness
>of an advertising campaign is inherent in any
>single advertisement. And even if a news source
>covers all sides of an issue, that does not mean
>that it is not biased.
>
>Media bias comes into play when one particular
>point of view is presented repeatedly, with a
>larger distribution, and broader coverage, than
>another.
Jay.
>At 02:17 PM 8/17/99 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>Here's another story on ICANN that
>>properly frames the debate. And it
>>is exactly this perspective that is
>>being suppressed by the media.
>>
>>Excerpts from:
>>
>>
>>http://intellectualcapital.com/issues/issue280/item6052.asp
>>
>>The ICANN Ruckus
>>by James Love
>>
>>As presently constituted, ICANN could make policy on issues like spam,
>>copyright enforcement, privacy, standards for digital contracts or funding
>>Internet access in sub-Saharan Africa. It could do this and much more, or
>>it could do very little other than attend to narrow technical issues. In
>>other words, ICANN, via its own discretion, might just become the driving
>>governing voice of the Net.
>>
>>ICANN will have governmental-type powers, but it will ultimately be a
>>private corporate entity. It can (and has) changed its bylaws at will,
>>needing just a two-thirds majority.
>>
>>ICANN critics share a deep unease about concentrating this much power over
>>the Internet in the hands of a private and largely unaccountable body.
>>
>>It is becoming clear that ICANN is an entirely new system of governance for
>>the Internet.
>>
>>Under the current proposals, ICANN can pursue its own governance agendas,
>>be captured by various special interests, and make policy decisions that
>>are of great importance.
>>
>>Froomkin notes that the Magaziner White Paper, and its offspring like
>>ICANN, are not proposals for no rules, but rather for shifting
>>responsibility for who will make rules, without any clear answers about how
>>the public's rights are protected.
>>
>>When we talk about "self governance," we need to begin to talk about who is
>>the "self" and what is the "governance." We are inventing a new world
>>government for cyberspace, but we are not creating a new world democracy in
>>cyberspace, and this is the problem.
>>
>>Let's go back to the drawing board and rethink governance in cyberspace,
>>with the explicit goals of protecting individual rights and providing
>>democratic accountability.
>>
>>+++
>>
>>
>>Respectfully,
>>
>>Jay Fenello
>>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>>-----------------------------------------------
>>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>>
>>"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is
>>ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third,
>>it is accepted as self-evident." (Arthur Schopenhauer)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
>
