Dave Farber writes to his IP list:
"I am, on the average, very impressed with the staff at the FCC. As I
have said before, they do what they believe is best for the country
recognizing that they are dealing with powerful industrial players
who often run to the Hill and the courts for protection if they are
pushed too hard. Somehow I think getting the Congress involved in
what are on the surface technical issues will backfire when
regulation issues end up being fought with lobbyists."
Cook: note the last sentence. "Somehow I think getting the Congress
involved in what are on the surface technical issues will backfire
when regulation issues end up being fought with lobbyists."
So where are the regulation issues going to play out, Dave? ICANN
style according to Andy Pincus? Andy seems to think ICANN is the new
correct way to do things? You don't like congress and lobbyists
doing it. So whom do you like? Industry self regulation a la
ICANN? At least with congress and the lobbyists there are some rules
for the conduct of public policy in an accountable fashion.
As we have seen with ICANN there are none except the "bylaw of the
day" and/or the "lie of the day" as ennunciated by, Esther, Mike,
and Joe. Moreover we have even been given an IBM lobbyist put in
place by the unaccountable "industry self-regulator" to run the
largest industry DNS player by setting policy for it. The powerful
industry players are able to use their lobbyists just as easily to
set policy for ICANN as they would if Congress were involved. But
for them ICANN is better than having to operate in the open. For
with ICANN they can focus their attention on fewer people and do it
out of the glare of public scrutiny they'd likely get if they had to
play on capital hill. So please be more explicit when you use the
word "backfire." Backfire from whose point of view?
The Clinton Gore mantra says we don't need any regulation by
publically accountable bodies. Why ? Presumably because industry can
do it and is doing it? Well who's industry (in this case ICANN)
accountable to Dave? I am still waiting for the answer on this one.
You Vint and Patrick have said in effect that we can't afford to have
ICANN fail? I am still waiting to hear the answer as to why. The
closest I have heard from you is that failure will mean 'adult'
supervision (government regulation) and we won't like that? Why
not? How will it be worse than the present shennanigans?
At least such regulation would have some accountability attached to
it and some public process rules and regulations....
With ICANN we have trade mark lawyers setting policy for internet name space.
Look at http://www.fibershield.net/ if you haven't already to see the
absurdity that this is leading to. Take a stand.... on the internet,
and on the future of new companies who want to continue to push the
envelop with their new technology. Tell us what task the ICANN board
was appointed to do and tell us whether you support the continuation
of policy setting by ICANN rather than congress and tell us why.
You wrote: "It is now time to engage specific efforts. They will
most likely focus on issues relating to Broad Band Access (like
openness issues etc); IP Telephony and wireless. More as it
progresses.'
Ah yes these are important. But there is a meta issue..... policy
making for the internet under ICANN. An effort that is getting no
where....and it is far more important given the huge investments
being made in the Internet. Are you capable or is anyone else in the
Clinton administration capable of giving leadership here? Or does
the operative definition of leadership conclude that ICANN and its
shadowy masters are doing an excellent job? Having watched ICANN
develop up to this point it would be far better for the Congress to
create a commission with appointed legal and technical staff,
including some technical staff from Europe and Asia than not to be
involved at all.
****************************************************************
The COOK Report on Internet Index to 8 years of the COOK Report
431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA at http://cookreport.com
(609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) What IBM & NSOL didn't want
[EMAIL PROTECTED] you to know about their ICANN role.
January 2000 COOK Report: http://cookreport.com/icannoverall.shtml
****************************************************************
