"A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 01:55 AM 6/5/99 , John B. Reynolds wrote:
>>P.S. Tony: the fact that I am an ordinary Internet user and not a hired
>>gun does not disqualify me from commenting on matters of Internet policy.
>You missed my point. I'm speaking favorably
>about your participation in discussions -
>just wondering why you (and for that matter
>other people who passionately argue a particular
>point or attempt to speak authoritatively) care.
Strange Tony. You asked me a similar question in 1992 when I got
on the com-priv list and tried to explain that there was a public
interest involved in what was to happen with the Internet *not*
merely the interest of those trying to get their cut of the
pie that was being put up for grabs.
I wonder why you don't recognize that there might be people
who have some public interests, that there are indeed
citizens and netizens.
There have been human beings who recognize that the French Revolution
and the U.S. revolution marked a significant change in society
from where the King ruled all and had sovereignty to where the
people became the sovereigns. And the Internet has followed
in this tradition as it is not a set of wires and cables, but
a relationship between users and computers and networks which
is fundamentally dependent on users having sovereignty.
The Interent has been built by the open interface and interactive
computing concepts where the users were recognized as having
to be active in designing their own end of the interface.
That is why the Internet makes possible the cooperation of
people and networks and computers around the world.
It is fundamenally based on that cooperation and your private
power grabbing is the challenge to the Internet and the netizens
and they recognize the challenge.
>In my own case, I've been analyzing and writing
>about similar public policy, legal developments
It doesn't seem that you are in fact writing about
"public policy" as I haven't seen anything you write
recognize that anything "public" exists.
And I don't understand how you can claim that you have
been analyzing so called "similar" "legal" developments
for 25 years, as what you are proposing is fundamentally
unconstitutional and thus illegal.
To try to disenfranchise the citizen or the Netizen
has no legal foundation, despite your claims to the
contrary.
You do indeed write about effort to "privatize" what is public
policy, but that doesn't qualify what you write to be
regarded as public policy, only the effort to sidetrack
the discussion so the real issue, the public issues are never
discussed.
>for the past 25 years. None of what is now
>occurring domestically and internationally is
>particularly new. What you find typically with
>these developments, is that there are multiple
>different potential outcomes that evolve with
>time, and no intrinsically right or authoritative
>answer - just directions.
How strange for you to say this.
I sat in Congress and heard people say that the effort to
create ICANN is setting a fundamentally new model for
which will serve as a precedent to be copied.
And even in some of your writing you propose things like
creating something like the ITU without governments involved
(or openly involved that is).
Also the history and development of the Internet shows that
all this is fundamentally unsound and "new". As the Internet
is the result of an interface between the computer science
community and government which led to the decisions being
made on a criteria that were sound and also made possible
the needed scaling so the Internet could grow and flourish.
All that is happening now with ICANN trying to replace both
the computer science community and the government role of
support for that community with a set of people operating
behind the scenes in a very vicious power grab is a serious
departure from what is appropriate to happen.
It flies in the face of open government processes as the
U.S. government is manipulating behind the scenes what
is happening here in a way that makes impossible the kind
of accountable or legitimate activity that is needed to
provide for the present future direction of the Internet.
And this corrupt activity of ICANN flies in the face of
any regard for the need for the computer science community
to be involved in the administration and scaling of the
Internet.
Thus it is flies in the face of the history and development
of the Internet and of the history and development of
science and government as they have evolved since the
earliest days in the U.S.
However, there is something that seems a much more serious
falsification in what you write. In another post you
claimed that it is impossible to have multiple countries
involved in the administration of the Internet and that
is why one has to put up with the deceit and conflict
of interest crooked activity of ICANN.
According to your view of history the Internet never developed.
You fail to understand or at least pretend you don't understand
that it is through the cooperative efforts of computer scientists
in a number of different countries, often supported directly
or working for their governments, that the Internet evolved so
successfully.
You want to throw out all that actual experience of what serves
Internet development and substitute a fantasy theory you are
proposing of how the Internet can be run by behind the scenes
governments and private interests -- as a so called "private"
ICANN.
Your theories don't substitute for reality however. A few days
ago, during the Berlin meetings you did a post that seemed
to acknowledge the problem that ICANN has demonstrated is its
essence. At that time I wondered if even you were admitting
the corruption of the ICANN model.
But I see by your posts today that you continue to promote this
corrupt model by trying to question anyone who recognizes there
is a public interest and a public purpose for society or
for the Internet.
But despite your misrepresentations there are indeed citizens
and netizens and none of your words or deeds or protestations
that such don't exist, can change that.
>--tony
Ronda
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------
See " Cone of Silence: ICANN or Internet democracy is failing"
by John Horvath
URL: http://www.heise.de/tp/english/inhalt/te/2837/1.html
And see Amateur Computerist vol 9-1
http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACN9-1.txt
