Jay and all,
Let's be clear here. ISP's have now, nor ever endorsed the whole idea
of ICANN in the first place. To my knowledge the ISPC is not in favor
of ICANN. ISP's in Europe have basically ignored the ICANN by in large
and many strongly oppose it.
Jay Fenello wrote:
> 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
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman INEGroup (Over 95k members strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Contact Number: 972-447-1894
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208
