>>
>> Throughout this debate over Internet Governance,
>> there has consistently been two very different and
>> distinct perspectives.
>>
>> 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.
>...
>> The other side looked at this transition as the establishment
>> of world-wide self governance, one that should be firmly based
>> on representative and democratic structures. Here, process was
>> more important than decisions, representative structures were
>> more important than political appointments.
>
Why must people so often cast things in binary terms, as this OR that? I
disagree with the assertion stated above, since I can list at least FIVE
perspectives in this debate:
1) the transition of authority should remain under the control of a
technocracy;
2) the transition of control should be based on a bottom-up self-organizing
structure;
3) lip service should be given to a representive, self-organizing
structure, but in reality the transition of authority will based on
behind-the scenes insider arrangements;
4) there should be NO transition of authority; the Internet is a public
resource and should not be in the hands of a private corporation.
5) regardless of what occurs, those with technical expertise will simply
route around the damage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Ellen Rony The Domain Name Handbook
Co-author ____ http://www.domainhandbook.com
========================== ^..^ )6 =============================
ISBN 0879305150 (oo) -^-- +1 (415) 435-5010
[EMAIL PROTECTED] W W Tiburon, CA
DOT COM is the Pig Latin of the Information Age
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
