Exactly where did ISPs directly
get any say in ICANN?
Jay.
At 12:56 AM 2/10/00 , Kent Crispin 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
Respectfully,
Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
------------------------------------
http://www.fenello.com 770-392-9480
Aligning with Purpose(sm) ... for a Better World
------------------------------------------------------
"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
-- Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN
