On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 01:46 PM 2/22/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >Given recent signs of ICANN's wanting to impose rigid central controls
> >on the Internet and given ICANN board's unwillingness to let anyone
> >hear how they come to these odd decisions, the NSI monopoly begins to
> >look like the lesser evil.
> >
> >In other words, we need delay. We do not need a vast bureaucracy
> >overseeing the Internet. If the cost of killing off the vast
> >bureaucracy is a few hundred million going to NSI, let them have it.
> >It's the cheaper solution. The ICANN empire will cost far more.
>
> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
What "compromise" effort?
> not be faced with the "vast bureaucracy" that is now developing. But too
> many people chose to vocally and vigorously and politically oppose that
> much simpler effort and these people pressured things towards the current
> develops.
Uhm, "current develops"?
> It would, in fact, be helpful for those who have been active in this topic
> to consider the real effects of their efforts, in particular the extent to
> which their constant complaining and constant pressing for delays has
> served only to creat more problems and more delays, rather than making
> things better. They should reflect on the very basic question which asks
> what is going to happen that will make meaningful change, or whether it is,
> perhaps, time to stop complaining and instead make progress.
The IFWP represented a genuine opportunity for compromise. For the
first time all the warring factions came together in one place, for
the first time there was genuine progress. For whatever reason
certain elements chose to kill off the possibility of peace. They
did everything they could to prevent progress; they contrived to
shatter the emerging consensus and blocked the IFWP wrap-up meeting.
As you say, they created more problems and more delays until finally
things fell apart.
This is where we are today. One of the persons most responsible for
blocking the IFWP wrap-up meeting and destroying compromise is president
of ICANN. He sits on a board that cares nothing for progress, that
every day displays its contempt for the Internet community, that seeks
to impose an iron grip on everyone everywhere. The Internet has until
now been an agent for universal progress; ICANN sees it as an
opportunity to create a new imperium, the first truly global law.
> Those who have been active and constant complainers against efforts to
> progress should consider these questions very, very carefully, Jim.
You who were one of the most active and constant complainers against
the IFWP, which was a real effort to progress, should consider these
questions very carefully indeed. When I met you in 1997 in Munich I,
like many others, was convinced that NSI represented an intolerable
monopoly. You and your allies have succeeded in creating something
that has persuaded me that there are things much worse than NSI's
monopoly in .COM/NET/ORG.
I see no risk or loss in delaying ICANN. As time passes, the ICANN
board may learn something about the Internet. Or they may just give
up and let someone else take over, and those replacements may actually
be competent. The risk is in letting ICANN proceed.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
