Pete Farmer wrote:
>
> I'm fairly inflexible as an advocate of due-process and sunshine.
Really? Then why haven't we heard a peep out of you during the past
eight months of takeover of all ICANN'S structures by ISOC and CORE?
Oh, I see, you advocate due process and sunshine, but then when they
aren't followed you say nothing, do nothing, and pretend that it
hasn't happened. We need more people like you on this earth, to
advocate democracy and then when we have a dictatorship instead, to
tell us that what we need is democracy. Thank, Mr. Farmer, for your
great wisdom and help.
> But these jingoistic/paranoid attacks on ICANN (e.g. Gordon's claim that
> NTIA has "sold out" American Internet interests to the Europeans, or his
> direct implication that ICANN intends to support governments' efforts to
> intercept Internet traffic) are way off the mark.
Yes, they are off the mark. They're an understatement. In reality,
ICANN is an illegally incorporated conspiracy of special interests
that is in violation of the California Incorporation Code, the
Sherman Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, and whose leaders
should be tried and convicted on criminal charges and sent to jail.
> >Suppose, for example, that ICANN actually gave ordinary people the abilty
> to elect the board of directors, and it could not be controlled by big
> corporate interests.
Suppose you stop taking hallucinogens.
> And the goal becomes one of creating a set of bylaws to best ensure this
> outcome.
Go tell Joe Sims that you want to re-write his bylaws. Then come
back and report to us what he says.
> My hope is that you not get all hung up in the "who knew what and when did
> they know it" story of how the interim Board was selected. The selection
> was at best messy and chaotic.
The selection was carefully planned and executed, as you well know,
or should by now. Do you think you can change that, now, with your
stupid lies?
> - Review ICANN's performance to date in following its policies, and look to
> remedies where they've fallen short.
The remedy is simple: Their conspiracy broken up. Their plot foiled.
Their leaders in prison.
> - Identify mechanisms for ongoing checks and balances on ICANN's power and
> authority.
The Department of Justice will "check" and "balance" them.
> Would it be wise to have some public body (with international
> representation and authority, I should think) to continue looking over
> ICANN's shoulder after Sept. 2000? If so, who would this be?
The World Court? The Hague Tribunal for crimes against humanity? The
Nuremberg Commission?
> I think these are the issues that matter.
Do you, you pompous ass?
