At 07:17 PM 9/10/99 -0400, David Farber wrote:
>At 2:20 PM -0700 9/10/99, Greg Skinner wrote:
>>It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
>>exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
>>self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists)
PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:
November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling
ICANN
> It
Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Greg Skinner wrote:
>>Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the result of the
>>laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ
>>that favor big businesses.
> Like what?
Auction of spectrum to cellular phone companies, for example.
Tony and all,
A.M. Rutkowski wrote:
> At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
> >fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
> >result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
> >seem to employ that favor big businesses.
>
> Like what?
>
> Eve
At 05:20 PM 9/10/99 , Greg Skinner wrote:
>fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
>result of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US
>seem to employ that favor big businesses.
Like what?
Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as path
Greg and all,
I don't find or see a great possibility of what you say Farber is saying
will happen. It is possible yes, but highly improbable given that the USG
has failed so many times already and a major election is in the offing
soon. Hence there is plenty of time for another stab at all t
It strikes me that Farber is not so much defending ICANN (as it currently
exists) as he is defending *the process* by which there can be Internet
self-governance. If ICANN (as it currently exists) falls, the process may
fall as well. Then we might very well be subject to laws that are the
result