>Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: BOUNCE [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Non-member submission from [Ronda Hauben ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:44:15 -0400 (EDT) > >>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Sep 30 23:44:14 1999 >Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Received: from panix3.panix.com (panix3.panix.com [166.84.0.228]) > by ns1.vrx.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EF72F00D > for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:44:13 -0400 (EDT) >Received: (from ronda@localhost) > by panix3.panix.com (8.8.5/8.8.8/PanixU1.4) id XAA19851; > Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:35:14 -0400 (EDT) >Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:35:14 -0400 (EDT) >From: Ronda Hauben <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: NSI and ICANN agreement = greater instability for Internet > >In a recent post about the ICANN/NSI announcement someone on >a mailing list I am on tried to assure others on that mailing >list and commented that the agreement would "supposedly will >put to rest all that inconvenient squabbling". > >However, the problem with ICANN is *not* inconvenient squabbling. >And though the U.S. media has tried to present the problem with >ICANN as only a factional fight between ICANN and NSI, that is >*not* the reality. > >The ICANN structure and conception are the result of serious misconceptons >about the nature of the Internet and how far certain business interests >can go to seize control of essential Internet functions, and still >have the Internet function in a way that will make it possible to >continue as an Internet, rather being split apart. > >The Internet requires scientific and accountable administration. > >The U.S. government activity creating ICANN as a way to throw its >support to certain corporate entities to vie for control of >essential functions of the Internet is the opposite of what was needed. > >The essential functions of the Internet require protection from >governments and to be put in the hands of scientific administration >and developers. > >That is the process that made it possible for the Internet to >develop. That is the process that needs to be understood for >the Internet to continue. > >So called "private sector" control via a so called "nonprofit U.S. >corporation" is *not* an entity that can be held accountable to >protect the essential functions of the Internet from being the >continual target of the fight of vested interests. > >ICANN is under the control of whom? Accountable to whom? > >And Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he >has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the >problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what >has been exposed to the world as a power grab by the U.S. government >to give certain U.S. corporate entities control over essential >Internet functions. Having a multilateral agreement of nations >wouldn't change that as they have no way to have scientific >leadership and oversight over the essential Internet functions. >This multilateral agreement would only be a rubber stamp for >ICANN's dirty deeds. > >There is *no* basis to give the essential functions of the >Internet to a private entity. > >These essential functions have been in public hands and their >administration has functioned in a way that has had an >obligation for public accountability. This system needed >to be strengthened, *not* destroyed, as it has been by the >creation of ICANN. > >The proper form for the administration and ownership and control >of the functions essential for the Internet, of the root >server system, the protocols creation and decision process, the >IP number allocation, etc. is *not* a private form. > >There is a need to understand what the form was that made it >possible for these functions to be protected from "vested" >interests and how to strengthen that form. That is *not* >what ICANN represents. > >Those who care about the continued development of the Internet >will recognize the need to protect its essential functions >from vested interests. How that is to be done needs to be >explored based on understanding how that has been done >in the development of the Internet. > >My proposal to the U.S. Dept of Commerce last year before they >set up ICANN gave a means for cooperative effort of computer >scientists from those countries interested in trying to be >part of understand the problem and then proposing a solution. > >My proposal gave a means for creating a prototype to make it >possible for those nations interested in providing the needed >protection to work together. > >My proposal gave a means for creating an online form to help >in the process. > >My proposal is online at >http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt > >ICANN does none of these. It hasn't identified what problem >really needs to be solved, and so is only setting a basis for >vested interests to make their power grabs for control of >the Internet and all its users. > >So the ICANN/NSI agreement is only the basis for a much more >serious squabbling and a basis for ever greater instability >for the Internet and its users. > >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 > > > -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Sometimes you have to have patience with things that annoy you." -Xena, "Xena: Warrior Princess"
