At 08:10 AM 8/12/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Nick Patience wrote:
No I didn't, so don't attribute this to me. Gordon wrote the paragraph
starting "If they want a comment from me..."
All I said was that there was a comment facility on the ZD site and I was
suprised, at that stage that it was still empty, but now, of course it is not.
But just for the record, I do realize this subject is complicated :)
Nick
>
>>If they want a comment from me they can cut and paste jay fenellos
>>first internet civil way item in the comment space, or they can have
>>the following from an earlier private message this morning. As you
>>know Nick, this issue is bloody complicated and not amenable to the
>>simplistic treatment barret would like to whitewash it with.
>
>Actually the issue isn't "complicated" it's just that it has
>to be treated openly and honestly and with a studied approach.
>
>The problem is more that control over the Internet is at stake
>and thus there are those interests out to grab for themselves
>all they can get, rather than having any concern with the
>Internet and its users.
>
>The real issue underlying all this is that the essential functions
>of the Internet like the domain name system, IP numbers, protocols,
>etc are just those functions, that not only are a form of
>centralized control over the Internet and its users, they are
>also just those functions that are crucial to the scaling and
>growth of the Internet. They need to be handled with the greatest
>protection and scientific judgement, rather than by any of the
>conflict of interest maneuvers of the so called "market".
>
>They have been under the control of the public and that's where they
>belong. ICANN is *not* the public, but an ill conceived and
>fraudulent entity created to take ownership and control of
>these essential functions away from the public and to put
>it into the hands of an irresponsible entity.
>
>The essential functions of the Internet have to be under the
>ownership and control of a public entity, and one where the
>scientific concerns for the functioning of the Internet are
>in control, rather than some short term private interest
>concerns.
>
>
>>comment
>
>>if the internet is to be homogenized or globalized under uniform laws
>>and controls, let it be done openly and honestly and NOT under the
>>guise of setting up ICANN to bring competition into dns and protect
>>us from evil NSI...... although I must say i have become almost as
>>disgusted with the absence of apparent leadership from Jim Rutt at
>>NSI as with Esther and Mike.
>
>The Internet needs standards to function - so to talk about it
>being "homogenized or globalized" fails to look at what makes
>it possible for it to function.
>
>According to such views, it would have been impossible to have
>ever created the Internet. But it wasn't *impossible* at all.
>
>And the Internet spread. So there are principles that the Internet
>represents and helps spread that are the kind of principles that
>are needed, and they aren't "uniform laws and controls".
>
>But these have to do with the Internet primarily as a communication
>medium, and with other functions such as commerce, or education,
>or medical uses all in the framework of it as a communication
>medium.
>
>To spread the Internet, it is crucial that its general nature
>be kept primary. Those trying to end the Internet and instead
>substitute substitute some so called "commerce net" in its
>place or telephone system in its place, will run up against
>lots of difficulties as they will have lost the thrust of
>the basic functionality as a communication medium, which makes
>it possible to spread and grow the Internet.
>
>>and PS the image of DoC beating people up with the white paper is
>>just too funny for words since when this lands in court commerce will
>>be shown to have been acting without legal authority.
>
>The NSF could involve the commerce dept in the administration
>of the Internet but *not* give away its authority to the commerce
>dept.
>
>The White Paper is without authority, because the Internet is *not*
>something belonging to the world of e-commerce. It is a communication
>medium, and the White paper ignored that.
>
>I agree with Gordon that the commerce dept has been acting without
>authority in all it is doing.
>
>Congress has frequently asked them under what authority they are
>acting. All they have given is the authority of the NSF to function
>with other departments of govt. Or they have given the law that
>lets them write contracts. But none of this is the authority for
>them to give away something that is public.
>
>The Office of Inspector General of the NSF stated the authority
>that the NSF had for its oversight of the domain name system.
>
>That was a legitimate basis. There has been no such statement
>by the Dept of Commerce despite the repeated request by
>Congress.
>
>At the July 22 hearing in Congress, one of the Congressmen asked
>if the Congress had to suspend the authorization of the NTIA
>because of their abuse with what is happening in this situation.
>
>And Becky Burr wouldn't testify, but she had the lawyer for
>the Commerce Dept testify instead.
>
>And when asked by a Congressman why they hadn't anticipated
>the problems in setting up ICANN, such as the fact of no
>way to fund it that is legitimate, there was no response.
>
>
>>At 12:46 PM -0400 8/11/99, Nick Patience wrote:
>>>There is a comment option on the site, I'm surprised it's still empty :)
>>
>>>http://www.zdnet.com/tlkbck/comment/321/0,7091,68185-new,00.html
>
>The article merely tried to gain sympathy for Esther Dyson's
>lack of any honesty or concern for the Internet in the role
>she is playing.
>
>>> >>>http://www.zdnet.com/intweek/stories/news/0,4164,2311649,00.html
>
>
>Ronda
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> Netizens: On the History and Impact
> of Usenet and the Internet
> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
> in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
_______________________________
Nick Patience
Internet Editor, ComputerWire Inc
T: 212 677 0409 x18 F: 212 677 0463
http://www.computerwire.com
