>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Dave Crocker
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>]
>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:48:02 -0400 (EDT)
>
>>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Aug 19 16:48:01 1999
>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Received: from postman.bayarea.net (postman.bayarea.net [205.219.84.13])
> by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A417EF07E
> for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 19 Aug 1999 16:48:00 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from shell2.bayarea.net (shell2.bayarea.net [205.219.84.7])
> by postman.bayarea.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA48699;
> Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:28:33 -0700 (PDT)
> (envelope-from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
>Received: (from dcrocker@localhost)
> by shell2.bayarea.net (8.8.8/8.8.5) id NAA23075;
> Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:28:27 -0700 (PDT)
>Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.0.58
>Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 13:20:59 -0700
>To: Jay Fenello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>From: Dave Crocker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: The Self-interest Ruckus
>Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Becky Burr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Esther Dyson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Mike Roberts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "IFWP Discussion List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>References: <005601beea4c$14e63d80$0201a8c0@ggg702>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
>At 10:13 AM 8/19/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>>One looked at the transition of authority from IANA
>>to ICANN as a purely technical matter, one that should
>>remain under the control of a technocracy.
>> - So what if civil liberties were not protected?
>> - So what if due process was ignored?
>> - So what if ICANN was captured?
>>As long as the technocracy got to decide policy issues
>>on behalf of everyone else, this side was happy, even
>>if they had to break some rules along the way.
>>
>>The other side looked at this transition as the establishment
>>of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based
>
>Arnold,
>
>One can also look at the debate as being between a collection of entirely
>self-interested parties on the one side:
> - So what if they have no experience with the realities of the system?
> - So what if they regularly promote dis- and mis-information?
> - So what if progress is blocked forever?
>
>The other side looks as the transition as a natural evolution of an
>existing process that has worked well, with 10 years of service and
>adaptation, where the current effort is to continue to broaden
>participation in decision-making, and to ensure stable funding and
>long-term management.
>
>d/
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>Dave Crocker Tel: +1 408 246 8253
>Brandenburg Consulting Fax: +1 408 273 6464
>675 Spruce Drive <http://www.brandenburg.com>
>Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>
--
This program posts news to thousands of machines throughout the entire
civilized world. Your message will cost the net hundreds if not thousands of
dollars to send everywhere. Please be sure you know what you are doing.
Are you absolutely sure that you want to do this? [ny]
