Most of the comments under this thread have been more
substantive the past couple days. Congrats! Let me note,
however, that the conversation still beats around the bush.
Icann is trying to govern without the consent of the governed.
The Board is presuming to rule without ever being elected by
the public. What prevents egoist abuses? Capitalism without
democracy is facism. The horror. I believe that a global sense
of our deep interactivity induces in us the self restraint needed
for freedom to prosper. Every act causes consequences, and
knowing this fact is what saves us from self destruction.
The players behind ICANN and WTO are pursuing narrow
private interests, judging by their fruits, and their "oldthink "
is clashing with a "newthink" view of life as interconnected.
WTO would gut national laws protecting food, air and water,
all for the sake of corporate profits. Is ICANN any less short-
sighted in its vision? To blazes with the future generations?
Read the signs being raised in the streets of Seattle today.
This morning the coalition of diverse protesters shut down
the WTO meeting. Amen to them. Wish we'd all stand up for
our natural rights, demand an elected internet government.
Shall we take to streets on the information superhighway?
-- ken
>> .... This is the unholy alliance that gave us the ICANN board.
>
>We still do not know who was part of that alliance, what criteria they
>used to select the candidates for the initial board, and what quid pro
>quos were made among those doing selecting.
>
>(We've been assured that those selected made no agreements, but the
>question is rather what agreements were made among those who did the
>selecting itself.)
>
>There are those among us who are still alive and who know the answers to
>these questions. But they steadfastly refuse to answer. All we know is
>that one highly paid senior partner in a major law firm claims to have
>acted merely as the naive errand boy who had no knowledge of his mission
>or even who sent him on his rounds. And now we see that same law firm
>being, by far, ICANN's single largest creditor.
>
>And considering that ICANN instantly entered into fairly lucrative
>agreements[*] benefiting at least two people who are rumored to have been
>involved with that less-than-immaculate conception, there is plenty upon
>which to question the circumstances and to suggest the existance of hidden
>deals.
>
>I personally would consider the evidence to paint a picture that is the
>opposite of an immaculate conception.
>
>
>[*] These two agreements have an average run rate of about $114,000 per
>month for ICANN's first 8 months of existance. These numbers are computed
>directly from ICANN's "Statement of Finacial Position June 30, 1999".
>
> --karl--
