Dear Ronda,
Vint said what he said, in reference to the previous writing he repllied
to. To my mind, that was that, and it had no room for your agenda this
time.
Your agenda is interesting, no doubt. It just didn't fit this time. I'm
glad you don't let us forget about it. I am most interested in one point
of view from you. What do you think of the development of the Internet
outside the US and beyond the stage where it was the brainchild of some
very brilliant, well-funded people in the US? And I guess recalling the
development of the WWW reassures you that this is not only a
third-worldistic question.
Yours,
Alejandro Pisanty
On Thu, 8 Jul 1999, Ronda Hauben wrote:
>
> "vinton g. cerf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >some corrections:
>
> At 11:08 PM 7/5/99 -0400, Gordon Cook wrote:
>
> >Don Heath has been
> >ISOC exec director since early 96.
>
> His position is president and CEO.
>
>
> >Vint, co-author of the TCP/IP protocol,
>
> >>father of the Internet, but senior MCI executive for the past five years.
> >>Vint who insupport of ICANN in May opined: "Let us dedicate ourselves to
> >>the creation of a global legal framework in which laws work across national
> >>boundaries to reinforce the upward spiral of value that Internet is capable
> >>of creating."
>
> No one denies the imprtant important contributions to the Internet made by
> Vint Cerf. However, it seems more appropriate to speak of founding fathers
> of the Internet rather than any one person as the father.
>
> A Wall Street Journal front page article the Friday before Father's
> Day spoke of the fact that there needs to be some thought about
> who the founding fathers are.
>
>
> >I was actually making reference to the Papers on electronic commerce that
> >were issued by the White House in June 1997 and updated in October 1999.
> >There is still an enormous amount of work to be done to fashion a framework
> >for electronic commerce which addresses the significance of digital
> >signatures, liabilities for electronic contracts, jurisdiction in various
> >business disputes, etc.
>
> But this all is secondary isn't it to what makes it possible to
> keep the cooperative processes functioning to keep the Internet
> an Internet.
>
> Is there some reason that you don't put the communication nature
> of the Internet as the primary issue, rather than taking a secondary
> aspect, i.e. one possible use of the Internet, and making that
> primary.
>
>
> >ICANN has a tiny role in this very large and very complicated
> >electronic trade framework.
>
> Why should the institutionalization of the IANA functions have
> anything to do with creating an electronic trade framework?
>
> The institutionalization of the IANA functions require a protection.
>
> These are the functions of the communication medium.
>
> These should not be at the mercy of someone's ideological power
> plays over their business interests.
>
>
> >The governments of the world will need to work together to put
> >into place practices and procedures that really
> >are conducive to the continued growth of commerce on the Internet. In many
>
> The issue however, that is primary is that governments and computer scientists
> work together to support the continued growth of the communication
> medium that is the Internet.
>
> This is again very different from subordinating this main essence
> of the Internet to one of the many uses of the Internet.
>
> What about the education uses of the Internet. And what about
> the uses of the scientific community. And what about the uses
> of the librarians. Why are you trying to erase all these from
> memory and instead substituting only one activity, i.e.
> electronic commerce, and subordinating all to it?
>
> >instances that will mean refraining from regulation where that would be
> >an impediment, but it seems to me equally likely that there will be some
> >legislation that would enable rather then impede electronic commerce.
>
> But unless there is regulation protecting the IANA functions from
> power plays like that we have already seen ISOC and ICANN and
> GIP people carrying on, the Internet is being sacrificed to the
> narrow purposes of a few behind the scenes players.
>
> >=================================================================
> >"INTERNET IS FOR EVERYONE!"
>
> You mean the buying and selling Internet?
>
> The electronic commerce is all agenda has effectively narrowed
> down the nature and value of the Internet to all.
>
> And ISOC refused to give press passes to journalists who
> challenge this narrow agenda. This is very far from any
> Internet for Everyone actuality. But a fine slogan to
> cover the fact that "e-commerce" is out to disenfranchise
> all users of the Internet.
>
> >Join the Internet Society and help to make it so.
>
> Doesn't the Internet Society have to open up and change its
> basic nature? Isn't it clear from the mess that ICANN has
> become from its first days that the Internet Society is at
> its essence a real problem for the Internet, rather than
> anything constructive?
>
> >See you at INET2000, Yokohama, Japan July 18-21, 2000
> >http://www.isoc.org/inet2000
>
> If you can afford the high fees for registration?
>
> And if you are a journalist, if you keep quiet and don't
> report the truth about the lack of democratic processes
> and procedures and about the narrow program of the Internet
> Society.
>
> Ronda
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Editor
> Amateur Computerist Newsletter
> The Newsletter denied press passes at INET '99
>
>
>
>
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dr. Alejandro Pisanty,
Director General de Servicios de Computo Academico
(Director, Computing Academic Services)
Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM)
Ciudad Universitaria, 04510 Mexico City DF MEXICO
Tel. (+52-5) 622-8541, 622-8542; Fax 622-8540
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
