>From: Pete Farmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: "A.M. Rutkowski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
> Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: RE: Lou Gerstner on what IBM wants from ICANN
>Date: Fri, 2 Jul 1999 11:05:51 -0700
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>Content-Type: text/plain;
> charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Friday, July 02, 1999, A.M. Rutkowski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
>
>>At 05:20 PM 7/1/99 , Pete Farmer wrote:
>
>>>Gerstner's not silly enough to think that ICANN does or ever will set
>transnational policy regarding Internet taxation, security and encryption,
>privacy, or universal access.
>
>>However, there is a significant group of players that
>seems to include IBM, that believes ICANN's flow-down
>contract arrangements are the ideal means for applying
>regulations, norms, and infrastructure taxes to those
>using the Internet on a uniform global scale.
>
>Oh, I don't think anyone regards it as an "ideal means." It's a rather
>clumsy means with severe limitations.
>
>I don't understand the fear that ICANN would trump the laws of sovereign
>states. Hey, my HMO might try to put Ts and Cs im my service agreement that
>say I can't sue for malpractice, but if state law rules such clauses
>invalid, they're invalid.
>
>Can ICANN establish a fee on domain names to cover administration costs?
>Yes -- that's within its charter. Can ICANN impose a fee whose proceeds
>would be used to bring Internet access to schools and libraries in
>sub-Sahara Africa? I don't think so -- it's clearly outside of ICANN's
>charter. Can ICANN bar a country from imposing a sales tax or VAT on
>Internet transactions? Not hardly. Can ICANN bar the conveyance of traffic
>using encryption technology that lacks a back door for law enforcement
>authorities? They possibly could try, although again it's not in ICANN's
>charter, and in any case, it wouldn't trump any country's law to the
>contrary.
>
>>The underlying mechanism is the GAC - which both decides
>the applicable law and normative arrangements for gTLDs
>and IP addresses, but also gets the governments to apply
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>the same law and norms to their "sovereign" ccTLDs.
>
>It might "encourage" the governments to act in this way. Possibly ICANN
>could even play a role as significant as that of the National Conference of
>Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, which draws up the Uniform Commercial
>Code (UCC) in the US. But the UCC isn't law unless the states decide to let
>it be law.
>
>>It's a seductive way to bring about a global Internet
>legal regime that many of these players believe necessary
>for E-Commerce and consumer protection.
>
>I recognize that reasonable people have reasonable concerns about ICANN. My
>impression of Mr. Cook's contributions, however, is that they simply play to
>people's paranoia of back-room conspiracy. (In another time, we could
>substitute "Trilateral Commission" or "Elders of Zion" for "ICANN.")
>
>It's a seductive way of maintaining the status quo -- and NSI's monopoly.
>
>Pete
>___________________________________________________
>Peter J. Farmer -- Director, Optical Communications
>Strategies Unlimited <http://www.strategies-u.com>
>Mountain View, CA
>+1 650 941-3438 (voice)
>+1 650 464-1243 (mobile & voice mail)
>+1 650 941 5120 (fax)
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
