Well, I don't know if it was the best but it certainly was the most
anti-ICANN (and thus pro-NSI) and certainly it had the lowest amount of
actual information. An indication of the research that went into that
article was the passage:
"Now it seems to me that this controversy could be obviated if we could
give up on the idea of one root server system, control of which anybody
would see as a golden ring. Surely the technology exists, or could exist,
to allow thousands of privately owned, independent root servers to
successfully interact with each other"
The fact that the author wrote "surely the technology exists, or could
exist" suggests to me that she didn't actually ask anyone about this point
before she wrote the article (or think through the ramifications of such a
distributed system).
I think the rest of the article shows a similar lack of actual analysis,
and reads as if she wrote the article seconds after getting off the phone
from an NSI flack.
No, it wasn't the best of the articles, unless your goal is engendering
uncritical hatred of ICANN.
At 07:36 PM 6/20/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Here's the best one I've seen:
>
>http://www.nandotimes.com/opinions/story/0,1098,60802-96791-691207-0,00.html
>
>Jay.
>
>
>At 06:31 PM 6/20/99 , Martin B. Schwimmer wrote:
>>Players Jockey For New Top-Level Domains June 17, 1999
>>
>>By Brian McWilliams
>>InternetNews.com Correspondent Business News Archives
>>http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_140121,00.html
>>
>>
>>Dyson: NSI Stalling Domain Transition June 16, 1999
>>
>>By Brian McWilliams
>>InternetNews.com Correspondent
>>http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_138581,00.html
>>
>>Government May Investigate ICANN June 18, 1999
>>
>>By Elizabeth Clampet
>>InternetNews.com Assistant Editor
>>http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article/0,1087,3_140821,00.html
>>
>Respectfully,
>
>Jay Fenello
>President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-943-0524
>-----------------------------------------------
>What's your .per(sm)? http://www.iperdome.com
>
>
