Dave Farber noted his agreement with Greg Skinner's assertion below.
>Many thanks, yes yes yes
>
>At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
>>exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
>>self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
>>fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
>>result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
>>seem to employ that favor big businesses.
>>
>>--gregbo
I say, comm'on Dave lets apply some logic here. What is the process
then that you defend??
What is it going to take before you say: Esther and Mike - you have
failed the process. You and ICANN are outta here.
How about doing some basic explaining?
1. Why do we need ICANN in the first place?
2. Why do we need a protocol supporting organization? When did the
IETF break?
3. Why do we need an Address Supporting Organization? If Arin, Ripe
and APNic are not sufficiently responsible to the ISPs that pay their
bills, they will be over thrown.
4. Why do we need a DNSO captured by CORE and the tradmark interests?
We don't. If one is serious about bringing competition rather than
control to DNS, support an association of registries and an
organization that will facilitate multiple roots coordinating with
each other.
I see that you are offering to write some scenarios. Good thank you.
but when you finish them, please don't hand them down from on high
like stone tablets. Quite frankly I think we should be quite
dismayed that Vint Cerf and John Patrick and Esther Dyson and Mike
Roberts don't have such scenarios already written. And if they *DO
have them* why didn't they turn them over to congress along with
their inane fund raising emails? Then the leaking might have made
these people look credible rather than foolish. Seriously if they
are going around to Venture capitalists asking for money for ICANN
and asserting that the internet is in danger if the VC's don't fund
them, where are their scenarios about the danger? This is like going
to a VC and asking for money for a real hot business with out having
a business plan. This bespeakes a level of competence that is rather
shockingly low.
Quite frankly scenarios ought to have been written long ago and been
publicly debated -- assuming that these people are sincere in their
assertions and not trying to use a campaign of stealth and deception
to create a platform of unaccountable authority to benefit special
friends.
I am not questioning your personal sincerity, but quite frankly I
think if there really were solid scenario's that could withstand
informed debate, they would have been written long ago. I published
one such scenario in my recent long piece along with some commentary
one what i saw as its short comings. This line of justification is
centered so far on fear of the unknown rather than substance. I
await substance most eagerly. I also wonder why, if these issues of
why the internet will fail if ICANN doesn't have its way have been
well thought out and are passionately believed in, it's not possible
to take an extra hour or two and put them into ascii. I had a task
to do and stayed up until three AM to do it last night. Am I the
only one with the conviction that this debate is serious enough to
become a bit sleep deprived?
I'd be very surprised if my source for the framework that I portrayed
doesn't go public quite soon. When this happens, if you disagree
with what he has written, I would be honored if you would take the
time to debate its author.
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to seven years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board -
[EMAIL PROTECTED] What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control
the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
****************************************************************
