James Love wrote: > > On Friday, March 31, I attended a briefing on the issue of the .union > internet top level domain (TLD). The meeting was organized by Manon > Ress <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. There were 17 participants, including the > union members and the speakers. I was one of the speakers, as were > Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from the US Department of Commerce and > Michael Palage, who is Chair of ICANN's working group B on trademark > issues. The AFC-CIO and a number of unions attended. Was anyone there representing the opposition to ICANN? If not, why not? There was a process centered in the IFWP subsequent to the White Paper. Most of the participants in the IFWP are not in ICANN because it is not a democratic process permitting them to participate. There is a large, a very large opposition to ICANN. Why do you and the unions invite only Burr, Bohannon, and Pelage, who represent ICANN, the fait accompli of the DOC, and none of the very many people who participated actively in this process and worked very hard to make it succeed, until they were betrayed by the imposters on the ICANN Board, put there by IBM, MCI, AT&T, the bought-off NTIA, and the trademark interests? Why do you favor the usurpers of power, instead of inviting to speak people like Milton Mueller, Karl Auerbach, Peter Dengate-Thrush, Jim Dixon, Jay Fenello, Ellen Rony, Harold Feld, Eric Weisberg, Peter Greenwell, and all the others, experts on the domain name system and in favor of a just use of it? > I started off by providing backgrond on the DNS system and some of the > policy issues that ICANN was addressing in the discussions over new > TLDs. Are you now a spokesman for ICANN? > I talked about our earlier proposal to create several new TLDs, > incuding .union, for a variety of civil society purposes. I indicated > that we had raised these issues in the ICANN process to insure that > decisions on issues such as the use of famous names would not forclose > the use of a company or product name in connection with various domains > that were related to organizing workers, consumers and for criticisms. What uses of the DNS for consumers are you advocating? Or is just the large power groups like trademark interests, business, and the unions who will have a say, and some control, over the DNS? What about the people, the citizens, the individuals, the consumers and other simple users of the Internet who need it for communication, and not for profit or politics? > I said that ICANN would be deciding, relatively soon, the rules for new > TLDs Only if you and people like you give them the power to do so. > Becky Burr and Mark Bohannon from DOC then made presentations. Why? Why does the DOC make presentations, telling us what the Internet will be used for and how it will be managed, if this is truly a process of privatization of the Internet in which policy will be made by the stakeholders and not the government? > Becky > expanded the background of the Green Paper and White Paper, the ICANN > process, how .edu and .us worked, and other items. In other words, gave her usual spiel of lies about how ICANN was created through consensus and represents all the stakeholders. And you let her tell these lies, unconfronted by the truth, to the unions. > Mark Bohannon then > went on an extended discussion of why unions might not need .union. The government takes the money of big business, which pays for its political campaigns. Why would they willingly let the unions, or any other citizens' groups, have part of the DNS? You have to fight for what you want, not ask lackeys of big business like Burr and Bohannon for favors. > Mark said What is all this "Becky" said this, and "Mark" said that? Are these people friends of yours? > they could do everything they needed by using the .org > domain. Of course that's what they're going to say, because they have control over .org, which is being given to all takers just like .com. > IMO, the suggestion that unions could > be happy sharing .org with everyone, saving themselves the trouble of > getting .union, was not particularly well recieved Oh? Are there really people left in the U.S. who dare to oppose the wishes of big business and its government? Not very loudly, though, I'll wager. > although there were > differences of views among the participants. So even some of the union reps are willing to let big business have its way with the Internet? Not very surprising, since they tell the workers to vote for politicians who give big business whatever it wants, including the busting of the very unions they claim to represent. > Becky told the meeting that if the AFLCIO > wanted to block someone from getting .union, they could. Ms. Burr will go far in American politics. She knows how to tell everyone what they want to hear, meanwhile lining her life with the influence and gold of IBM. > Mark and Becky > also said... Mark and Becky, huh? > that if the unions wanted .union, they could probably do it, > but that they would have to provide a consensus proposal Bullshit! There has never been any consensus in ICANN, except among the usurpers. And there is no process to find consensus, either. "Consensus" is to ICANN what "the final solution" was to the Nazis: the big lie. That's why they repeat it over and over. Because it isn't true. > and it would have to follow > the rules laid down by ICANN and DOC on issues such as intellectual > property and disclosure of the names of domain owners. How about if the people of this country make some rules for their lives for a change, instead of meekly doing what IBM tells them to do? How would CPT and the unions feel about that? > Some union members wanted to know about alternative root systems and to > talk about the issues of ICANN's power and control over the Internet. Did Burr and Bohannon take these "agitators'" names down, so that they can be given to ISOC for their smear campaigns, and to the FBI and CIA for persecution? > Becky and Mark said that they did not want to stop people from > experimenting with these alternatives at this time, but that they were > not practical. Not so long as IBM, MCI, and AT&T are running the Internet. > He said > the key to success in the ICANN process was to minimize enemies, and he > did not appear to have made any enemies at the this meeting. There are no enemies in ICANN. Everyone who opposes ICANN's special interest policies is excluded. > I can report that there were a range of opinions expressed > during and before the meeting. ICANN and the DOC will soon see to it that there is a "consensus", that is, that all opinions not in accord with their dictates are squashed. ============================================================ Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org Tel. (718)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927 ============================================================ _______________________________________________ Non-Commercial Top Level Domains mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/nc-tlds
