Hello Ronda,
Heretofore, you have been annoying chime, but the following is pure FUD.
Having worked in two of the organizations mentioned I can tell you that it
don't work that way. Anyone that has worked in MCI management can tell you
that MCI can't even conspire with itself. You have no idea of the
semi-chaos, that comprises the MCI corporate culture. McGowen wanted an
anti-bureaucracy and he succeeded. I have sympathy for WorldCom's executive
staff. IBM, on the other hand, is still extremely aware of the same
anti-trust issues that broke up AT&T, almost caught IBM, and is facing MS
right now. It is highly unlikely that IBM would participate in such a
potentially dangerous plot (Gates should have taken some lessons from IBM).
At 08:05 AM 2/24/99 -0500, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>Bob Allisat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>http://www.icann.org/contributors.html ...
>+
>>+ The ICANN Board of Directors thanks the following contributors
>>+ to the ICANN Startup Fund for their generosity:
>>+
>>+ Compaq Computer Corporation, $25,000
>>+ IBM, $25,000
>>+ MCI Worldcom, $25,000
>>+ Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000
>>+ Paul D. Stauffer, $1,000
>>+ Symantec, $15,000
>>+ UUNET, $25,000
>
>> Hmm... as suggested by an esteemed collegue perhaps this list is
>> a nice start to some form of boycott. Add to that the good folks
>> behind the IAHC/CORE <http://www.corenic.org/number.htm> and we
>> have quite the nice beginings of an anti-ICANN boycott/protest!
>
>> Bob Allisat
>
>And isn't UUNET owned by and part of MCI Worldcom?
>
>So
>>+ MCI Worldcom, $25,000
>+
>>+ UUNET, $25,000
>MCI Worldcom - $50,000
>
>And at least in the 1980's IBM folks were on MCI Worldcom's Board
>of directors. And in the privatization of the NSF Backbone,
>IBM and MCI worked joined together on that and MCI ended up with
>great benefit as a result (and one guesses that IBM did as well
>or they wouldn't be back with their hands out for this takeover
>of public property.)
>
>Does anyone know the relationship between MCI and IBM?
>
>So the MCI worldcom/IBM investment in grabbing control of the
>Internet as listed above is $75,000
>
>And what about Microsoft's connection to all this? UUNET
>is involved with Microsoft.
>
>Are the other companies connected to each other or to MCI-Worldcom
>as well?
>
>It would be good to hear why they think it is in the public's
>interest to give some private, irresponsible and hidden
>entities control over the controlling functions of the Internet.
>
>>+ Netscape Communications Corporation, $15,000
>
>Didn't they encourage the U.S. government to bring an
>anti trust suit against Microsoft?
>
>And yet they are happy to take a much greater forcus
>of power over the Internet and put it in hidden hands
>that are likely to include Microsoft's?
>
>
>Ronda
>
>
>
> 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
___________________________________________________
Roeland M.J. Meyer -
e-mail: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Internet phone: hawk.lvrmr.mhsc.com
Personal web pages: http://staff.mhsc.com/~rmeyer
Company web-site: http://www.mhsc.com
___________________________________________________
KISS ... gotta love it!
