On Thu, May 13, 1999 at 10:49:50PM -0700, Patrick Greenwell wrote:
<that it was a misconception that ICANN was not a government>
Kent intoned:
>Let's see --
>Governments have standing armies. Does ICANN?
>Governments can put you in jail. Can ICANN?
>Governments can have you executed. Can ICANN?
>
We are talking about governance of central internet functions. We were also
talking about legislation.
Your rhetorical questions only indicate that you are in denial. Why is it
so important to you to deny the government aspect of ICANN?
>The usual definition of a government is an entity that has a
>monopoly on force. Does ICANN?
>
In the internet sense, yes. It can execute, jail or banish the virtual
net-presence of a DN owner.
It can kill off a registry or a registrar. It can grant or withhold
freedoms such as running a TLD.
It can even grant or deny real governments souvereignty over "their" ccTLD's.
>A few regulatory functions, enforced through contracts, does not
>make a government, Patrick.
>
When done by an authority that has a monopoly over the rootservers, it
does, Kent.
Wasn't Jon nicknamed "God"?
When ICANN can transform itself into an elected body, that represents the
will of the stakeholders in net-presence, then the will of the represented
stakeholders determines inhowfar ICANN may call itself a "government" ,i.e.
an instrument of the netizens' self-determination.
BTW, starting with detailed regulation, resulting in faits accomplis,
*before* this has happened, is called a coup.
--Joop Teernstra LL.M.--
the Cyberspace Association,
the constituency for Individual Domain Name Owners
http://www.democracy.org.nz/idno/
