I can understand you, Gordon, and still have my own perspective.
The trust you hope to see perhaps grows out of folks interacting
with mutual respect for one another, which for me grows out of
that global sense of our deep interactivity I keep talking about.
I have a long way to grow, personally, to achieve this level of
maturity, but tiny progress every day adds up over a lifetime.
And so I do what little I can from where I am to make a dent.
Most of us think we're isolated and powerless. That's a lie.
When Stef talks about the power at the edge of the network,
this is where I'm focusing, empowering individuals for action.
The practical problem is that we need a common framework
for responsible behavior that honors the rights of all players,
like we need a common language to communicate clearly.
I'm advocating an inner sense of global interactivitiy that
guides us to balance our freedom with responsibility.
Since we lack the emotional, political or even spiritual maturity for
responsible self rule (so far), we need laws to govern our actions.
Law is the fundamental Social Contract keeping civilization from
descending into chaos. When we finally grow up into adulthood,
anarchy may work. Until we do learn how to live responsibly free,
I favor laws over kings for setting bounds on civil conduct. Right
now we have the fox guarding the henhouse. Apart from the rule
of law and asserting our natural right to enjoy self determination,
how else would you propose stopping the ravages of ICANN?
Indeed, the more I think about it, could a lawsuit be the answer?
(There never was any public vote to privatise the public Internet,
and there never was any public vote giving authority to ICANN.)
And if so, in what venue could the plaintiffs gain a fair hearing?
And who could or would put up the money to sustain the suit?
Is there anyone with deep pockets AND a deep conscience?
-- ken
Ken Freed
Publisher, Media Visions Journal
http://www.media-visions.com
"Deep literacy makes global sense"
>>Which is why we need laws governing the DNS, not committees.
>>-- ken
>>
>>P.S. Richard: Your address: ("Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>)
>> always bounces as "undeliverable", if that info is helpful to you.
>
>
>
>
>you simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND ken.......
>
>although I admitt I didn't fully understand until I called steff
>voice a couple of hours ago and asked him to explain the TCP function
>as a tust mechanism for IP.
>
>laws shmaws...... the bloody hell with laws...... yes in grade
>school they taught us that laws were good....but any gd laws in any
>gd legilature are gonna be the laws the control freaks o the icann ip
>police want........
>
>so don't talk laws.,...... you are wasting all our time...... the
>only way end to end can work is if the ends can trust each
>other.........
>
>if someone has enough money to sue department of commerce over icann
>let them do so!!!!! If no one steps up to the plate then turn to
>trust issues and start DEALING with rewality
>
>by the way if you throw out the ICANN roots from your dns
>
>
>and use the following ip addresses for your name server
>204.80.125.130
>204.57.55.100
>199.166.24.1
>
>richard sextons non standard dns works fine
>
>
>ARGH!!!! i have used these for about 2 years 7 by 24
>--
>****************************************************************
>The COOK Report on Internet, 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA
>(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Index to 9 years
> of the COOK Report at http://cookreport.com From now
>through Sept 15th
>half price sale on university library site license and access to ALL
>back issues.
>Site license $575 and all back issues $300. http://cookreport.com/sale.shtml
>****************************************************************
