So you think only nameserver owners should be allowed to vote, Kent ?
At 09:56 PM 2/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
>>
>> Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>>
>>
>> > >I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
>> Large
>> > >membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That
>> >
>> > You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street
>> > to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry that he's a voting
>> > member of internet government?
>> >
>> > Limit it it to nameserver owners. That's who it's supposed to be
>> > coordinating isn't it? (Like they ever asked to be coordinated).
>>
>> Provided that 'Old Harry' and his children will never be impacted in any way
>> whatsoever by the Internet, I would then and only then emphatically agree
>> that they should not have an avenue for their voices to be heard within the
>> halls of Internet Governance.
>>
>> Nobody wants to be coordinated. But that is exactly what government does.
>> Whether her mandate is narrow or broad THE ICANN WILL COORDINATE ALL OF US,
>> not just those of us who own nameServers. We all ought to get in on the
>> voting. Even Harry.
>>
>> Arnold Gehring
>
>A nice sentiment, but simplistic to the point of uselessness. The
>fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the
>Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old
>Harry doesn't have any right to tell me how to run my computers -- not
>directly, and not indirectly through the medium of ICANN. Nor does he
>have the right to tell ISPs how to do things, except through the medium
>of the market. The fundamental issue here is the assertion of
>authority over private entities that actually own the Internet
>infrastructure. The issue is not individual rights, at least not in
>the sense that ICANN would be considered as a representative organ of
>the "people".
>
>ICANN has no authority to tell ISPs how to do things without their
>consent. Though proponents of internet governance would like it to be
>otherwise, it is the ISPs and other infrastructure providers that are
>the "governed" in this situation -- not individuals. This is the
>fundamental reason that individuals have little power in the ICANN
>structure, and there is essentially nothing that can be done about it
>unless you turn ICANN into an arm of government.
>
>That is, if you were to modify the ICANN structure so it was operated by
>popular vote of the "people", then the ISPs, registries, IETF, etc would
>simply ignore ICANN, and the "people" would have no more power than they
>did before.
>
>
>--
>Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
>
>
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
- Mark Crispin
