Arnold and all,
Arnold, Kent is disturbing in general. I think he chooses to be as a matter
of being disruptive purposefully with his political diatribe that he has
espoused
repeatedly for several years. No surprise there. Consider his arguments
from that perspective, and you will have a better grasp of Kent.
A.Gehring wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:56 PM 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.
>
> My neighbor owns the largest grass seed farm in the world. While I may not
> agree with the action his government brings against him, I do not believe
> that because he 'owns' the land that he should be exempt from governance.
>
> Your arguments Ken, are deeply disturbing.
>
> Arnold Gehring
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> >
> >
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
