Gordon Cook wrote:
> well of course Postel, like ICANN, was rather impeious and did what
> he pleased. A key differ ence he was tusted. ICANN is not
Yet Postel was hoping that ICANN would provide some means for the type
of cooperation the (traditional) Internet community has typically
fostered to continue in some way.
> I think we bing similar information to the poblem. however I fail to
> arrive at you concluson. please justiy and back up with detail your
> rather sweeping statement.....
I was reading the poised archives sometime back, where there was an
exchange between Stef and some of them. I don't remember all the
details (I'll try to look them up) but one of them said that they felt
that ICANN was the best compromise that could be worked out under the
circumstances.
Of course if you don't trust any of them either nothing I say will
matter.
> my position contrary to esther is hat the
> pocess DOES matter. The ends do NOT justify the means. unpleasant?
> so be it?
Gordon, I don't know what to tell you here. The way the process
evolved, the USG was forced to step in, in ways that have *already*
gotten politicians and lawyers far too involved (imho) in what was
once processes that could be carried out based on cooperation. You
say we ought to give it up, and let Congress decide for us how the
Internet should work. Are you so willing to concede the benefits you
now enjoy to people who have even *less* sense of the (traditional)
Internet community?
> so? there is some small hope of redress with congress. with esther
> and captin mike there is none.
What makes you think Congress will not favor big business'
imperatives? At least with something like ICANN, there is more
likelihood that the little guy can approach the table and be heard.
What future would something like the DNRC have in the face of big
business' lobbyists? How could individuals like Ronda Hauben or
Michael Sondow make any kind of impact? Activists would need to have
huge, strong, undivided constituencies to make any significant impact
on how Congress might regulate the Internet. That's certainly not
happening now.
No doubt your response will be that the little guy already isn't being
heard and can't approach the table. I offer that as proof that
government intervention favors big business at the expense of the
little guy.
--gregbo
