> >ICANN is by no means the only forum where (liberal) governments have
> >taken this position ... (I appreciate it is not clear what legal
> >basis Mr Twomey has for conceding sovereignty on behalf of the
> >governments for which he speaks...
>
> What other forums is this being done in?
>
> And ICANN is *not* a forum, but a power play of the grossest nature.
>
>
> >The interesting thing is that these governments must grapple with the
> >theoretical advantages of free trade in ideas and goods, to some degree
> >implying loss of executive control and with further implications for
> >cultural dilution vs economic gain. It is surely indicative that
> >Australia, one of the few autarkic nations with no real land borders or
> >historical cultural relationship with its neighbours should take the
> >lead in this area. Calls for the disappearance of government from the
> >process are misplaced.
>
> What kind of "free trade in ideas or goods" when the central
> point of control of vital functions of the Internet are being
> put in hands that have no oversight and no responsibility to
> anything but their own self enrichment?
>
Indeed, the other 'forum' that comes to mind is the Multilateral
Agreement on Investment, by which 'free' trade interests would
have declared themselves unaccountable under national (and
local) governmental structure. By that simple 'technical'
rationalization, they would, in fact, have the staus of government
themselves. A hundred years ago, it was called piracy; now its
called enhancement of assets.
If ICANN is the puppet of the Free Traders, I can imagine the
puppeteers chortling as they sign off on Twomey: "Ha - so they
want Government, eh? We'll give them Government!" Even if it is
not, it is certainly a stalking-horse for the Brave New Fiefdom.
The MAI, by the way, once it came to public awareness, was
abandoned in the OECD and is being resurrected in other venues:
APEC for one and WIPO's sister organization, WTO, for another.
(Remember the competitive advantage of having parallel entities)?
If you want to know the future of ICANN, watch what happens in
Seattle in November. While we squabble about the actions of 9
individuals, an entire unaccountable empire is shrink-wrapping the
globe and all the socalled intellectual property in it.
And if you thought NSI had a monopoly, wait till Monsanto buys
them out. Claims to free speech (and I dont mean just domain
names) will be right alongside the claims of unenlightened farmers
claiming 'heritage' of the seeds they grow, with a little marker: R.I.P.
=========
Milton Mueller wrote (re: Roberts' reply to Post):
> Just as the FCC's control of radio spectrum allocation was used to
> license and regulate conduct and content, so ICANN's mandate has
> been to utilize the control of domain name registration to license
> and accredit registrars, impose a specific business model on the
> industry, and to police and enforce intellectual property rights.
When ICANN can be put through the same oversight and *public
hearings as FCC, the problem will indeed be settled. The problem
is, ICANN was deliberately *not set up as a federally mandated
entity, and the question is, Why?
Ronda pointed out the difficulty the FCC met when it created a
corporation to administer the E-Rate mandate (which
'experiment' has since been rolled into NECA). Perhaps ICANN
should likewise be subsumed under the FCC.
kerry
