Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At least with congress and the lobbyists there are some rules > for the conduct of public policy in an accountable fashion. IMHO, the only thing that congress has going for it is that it's elected by the public. Beyond that, it's just as subject to capture as ICANN. It suffers from the same problems as ICANN; the public at large is either not educated on the issues or is apathetic. It is vulnerable to influence by big business. Small businesses and individuals only have a token voice. > 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? It will be just as bad, IMHO, but the difference will be that it will be a part of US law, and therefore, big business will be able to screw small business and individuals on perfectly legal grounds. (For example, consider the recent Disney/Time-Warner conflict.) > 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 end results will still be the same. They'll just pick the same people who've been key players in the issues so far. Your congressional rep will just announce they endorse Vint Cerf, etc. for these positions. They will get appointed because they are in the public eye and the masses will believe what they say. --gregbo
