>Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Antony, Karl,
>In message <001201be6b07$fcfdff00$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Antony Van Couvering" writes:
>> Karl Auerbach wrote,
> >
> >> There is no meaningful opposite to a registry constituency.
>> >
>> >Balderdash. Registries sell domain name licenses, other folks buy them.
>> >They are in direct opposition.
>The .NA ccTLD registry DOES provide a community service and free of
>charge at that. MANY (emerging, developing) registries are
>similar. Some of us do NOT want to make money of this.
Isn't the effort to have the big boys come in and change this?
To have the efforts that people make to spread the Internet and
to make it available to all to spread the online communication
it makes possible replaced by those who will try to make their
bucks from the Internet and will be as happy to limit the
communication to the high end users who have the bucks to pay.
To transform the Internet into the kind of high end, users stay
away paradigm that the mainframe computers using batch processing
represented -- which was the commercial vision for the future of
the computer. Isn't ICANN the effort to take us back in time
and in computer science achievements to the commercial control
all and keep the people from participating mode?
.
>> I wonder how we got to this class-warfare pass. RFC 1591 puts the
>> function of the registry as being one of "service to the community",
>> which is correct. People have poo-pooed my espousal of RFC 1591 in
>>> this regard as being motherhood and apple pie, of course no-one
>> disagrees with those fine-sounding words, but in fact the whole
>> project of identification of constituencies has turned everything
>> into a big rights game.
>What I can't understand is that after 30 years of computer science and
>the rule "If it ain't broke, don't fix it" why we MUST now fix a DNS
>that is not broken.
Isn't ICANN the effort to break what ain't broken :-(
>Of course, I do understand it: selling domains is a licence to print
>money.
>Obscene amounts in relation to the work performed, or rather work not
>performed.
>And my pet parasites, the Registrars...
Clearly the Internet has its enemies and they are being gathered
by this whole ICANN process to prey upon the folks who have
found the Internet to be something important and who want it
to spread and develop.
But isn't any good development attacked viciously, and wouldn't
the enemies of the new want to call themselves "ICANN"? So there
is no real surprise here, but that doesn't change the crime
that the development of ICANN in opposition to the scaling and
further healthy development of the Internet represents.
When I spoke with Ira Magaziner last summer he assured me that
the desire of the U.S. government was *not* to end the communication
that the Internet makes possible. But the deeds that have developed
show that the U.S. government is making *no* effort to support
the communication made possible by the Internet, and instead is
content to wreck the Internet rather than stop the crime
that ICANN is perpetuating.
>el
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
