On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:18:57AM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
>
>
[...]
> >
> > ICANN has no authority to tell ISPs how to do things without their
> > consent. Though proponents of internet governance would like it to be
> > otherwise, it is the ISPs and other infrastructure providers that are
> > the "governed" in this situation -- not individuals. This is the
> > fundamental reason that individuals have little power in the ICANN
> > structure, and there is essentially nothing that can be done about it
> > unless you turn ICANN into an arm of government.
> >
> > That is, if you were to modify the ICANN structure so it was operated by
> > popular vote of the "people", then the ISPs, registries, IETF, etc would
> > simply ignore ICANN, and the "people" would have no more power than they
> > did before.
>
> My neighbor owns the largest grass seed farm in the world. While I may not
> agree with the action his government brings against him, I do not believe
> that because he 'owns' the land that he should be exempt from governance.
If an ISP commits fraud, the principles can go to jail. So they are not
"exempt from government". But that is completely irrelevant to our
situation. Despite the delusions that many people suffer, ICANN is
*not* a government. It does not have the coercive power of the state to
back its actions. [*]
You have two choices -- you can turn ICANN into a government tool with
real power over registries, ISPs etc, in which case the GAC becomes the
real power in the organization, and the Internet is run by international
government agreements (formal or informal). Or you can try to continue
the Internet tradition of private coordination.
In the first case individuals have no significant power -- the GAC or
its successor will have all the power. In the second case individuals
have no significant power, either, because the entities being
coordinated (ISPs, registries, etc) are under no compulsion to pay
attention to ICANN.
> Your arguments Ken, are deeply disturbing.
I'm not sure why that would be.
Think about the auto industry. There are numerous government
regulations that affect the auto industry. Imagine that there was an
entity like ICANN involved -- "IBCAP, the International Body for
Coordination of Automotive Policies" -- to coordinate certain policy and
technical issues in the auto industry. Of course, its activities would
affect individuals. Of course it would have to worry about anti-trust
issues. But do you think that the auto manufacturers would turn over
*control* of IBCAP over to random individuals? No way. On the other
hand, there might very well be a place for individuals to participate,
because that would be useful input.
What is deeply disturbing to me is that so many members of the
"membership roundtable" -- obviously very intelligent, capable people --
seem completely deluded about what ICANN really is or can be.
[*] ICANN has a bit of power related to .com/.net/.org. But that is
mostly an illusion -- the USG is the entity that holds all the real
power there.
Kent
--
Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
