Mikki Barry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bret A. Fausett wrote:
>And there are many commercial and consumer interests who have made a huge
>investment in the Internet who would also like a "guaranteed venue" who are
>not represented. That is why I still advocate a flat membership structure.
>Not all investments can be measured in money or commercialism. If the non
>commercial interests hadn't made the Internet such a desired venue for
>communiciation, and if governments, academic institutions, private, and
>commercial entities hadn't made committments to the medium, there would BE
>no e-commerce. Yet that fact is consistantly left out of proposals for
>constituencies. There is no provision for public interest, universal
>access interests, schools and universities, freedom of expression, and
>several other important constituencies that are left out of every proposal
>(although it has been talked about in the DNSO.org draft, although it is
>being shot down as "brought up too late" when in fact it has been brought
>up time and time again over the years).
But these interests were part of the proposal I submitted to
Magaziner and the NTIA.
See http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt
It was for a different kind of form, than the corporate form.
It turns out that a corporate membership form is *not* appropriate
for any constituencies with regard to giving control over vital
controlling functions of the Internet to those on the Board
of Directors of the Corporation who can therefore treat all of
these important responsibilities at whim as bases for them
to sell their souls to the highest bidders.
It's a set up for illegitimate activity, to put the problem mildly.
>This is why I continue to be for the flat membership.
But no sort of membership can deal with the fact that the
board of directors will have power of an unimaginable kind
over all of the Internet. Membership is an inappropriate way
to deal with the fact that the "crown jewels" of the Internet
are being put in the hands of an unregulated entity.
A membership structure is ok for voluntary organization, but
not for a body being created to regulate the Internet, with
no accountability to anyone.
>
The Olympics Committee shows the kind of pressure on folks
and the kind of criminal activity that results, and that
doesn't have the essential functions of the Internet at stake
as it is in this situation.
>>This latest "draft" Draft is obviously a compromise, but those of us who
>>advocated a flat membership without constituencies can take great comfort
>>(and some pride) in the fact that we've moved all of the participants in
>>our direction. There is now consensus, I believe, that the Names Council
>>is not a private, "council of elders:" it is a manager of the process.
>The Names Council is still elected through constituencies, which I find to
>be highly problematic.
See the account I wrote up about the Names Council meeting in
Geneva at the IFWP at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/ifwp_july25.txt
The meeting showed that self interest was totally dominant and
not any ability to figured out what was needed to provide
what the Internet would need to have the domain name situation handled
in a helpful way.
>
>>That's good enough for me, and I hope, a place for compromise.
>It's not good enough for me, or for any of the other public interest
>advocates who do not want to see the Internet carved up among business
>groups.
The whole concept of ICANN is contrary to any public interest
concerns and even to most commercial interest concerns.
Who is pushing it and why?
Obviously it is being pushed by those with no concern for
the Internet, for the public interest or even for the commercial
interests of most commercial entities.
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
