Greg and all,
Greg Skinner wrote:
> 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.
Yes, but even Jon knew that the (Traditional) internet community
was going to have to make some serious concessions. And under
the current ICANN regime, they have not. Hence leading more and
more (Traditional) internet folks to distrust the ICANN, and for good
reason for the most part. Now it seems that even the USG, al
la the NTIA are beginning to have doubts bringing us now
full circle.
>
>
> > 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.
That was then, this is now. Big difference.
>
>
> Of course if you don't trust any of them either nothing I say will
> matter.
How true.
>
>
> > 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?
I can't answer for Gordon, but I can for our 98k members. We would
rather work with congress at this juncture simply because the ICANN
Board members have not worked with the stakeholders in an honest
manner and have decided to dictate policy and thereby violate the
precepts of the White Paper and the MoU, with relative impunity. So
this leaves us with either Congress or the court systems.
>
>
> > 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.
I am afraid I don't agree with your opinion here at all. The ICANN has
consistently disinfrangized the "Little Guy" our of real input of any
kind unless the completely agree with the ICANN Board in advance.
>
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
