Re: [IFWP] Re: Four more years?

[Michael Sondow]

Jay Fenello wrote:

> What we have is a systemic problem, one that
> can be described by field theory.  To fix it,
> we'll need a comprehensive approach.

I agree with Jay, and I think we must view the USG's approach to ICANN
in the light of the USG's approach in general to international politics,
which the Internet is a part of. 

The DoC is not primarily concerned with how the domain name system, or
the Internet, is run. What they are concerned with is retaining control.
If they allow the Internet to become democratized, that control goes out
of their hands because the Internet user public is international.

The USG is currently in activist mode regarding international
institutions. That goes for the UN, the WTO, the Hague, and all other
multi- and international organisms. The USG is taking control of them.
And the USG sees the Internet as an international institution, or at
least as an international mechanism. So it won't do anything that
diminishes its control over it. 

The rest is just spin.

M.S.

[IFWP] Re: Four more years?

[Jay Fenello]

At 2/28/02  02:47 AM, Richard J. Sexton wrote:
>The problem, Jay as I see it, is this: can ICANN be reformed? I don't
>think so - not with the people that are in charge of it now. Why are
>they there then? Ira/the DoC appointed them. Why the DoC?
>Because in the Inter-agency Domain Name Task force meetings 4
>years ago the DoC claimed to have all the answers so when
>everybody else stopped snickering, they told them "sure, go run with
>it". Why did the DoC want to run is? Large 3 letter corporations
>lobbied to the tune of tens if not hundreds of millions to make sure
>DoC got the ball. Follow the money.
>
>Remember, this is still all under DoC oversight. ICANN has admitted
>they're "in constant communications" with them just like they're in
>"constant communications" with foreign governments - which is rightly
>the job of the State Department.


Hi Richard,

Can ICANN be reformed?  I don't see how,
when it is a result of a political process
that is every bit as corrupt as ICANN is.

That's why I wrote:
>ICANN taking over the Internet is not the problem.
>It is merely a reflection of our current "system"
>as it has evolved over time.


>This has manifested itself into, once again, the installation of power of
>a group, not of the community, over that community - In this sense
>ICANN is just a recapitulation of the IAHC disaster; sero sum games
>both. The IFWP consensus documents came very very close to this
>whole group acting as a coherent one but big monied interests acting through
>outside forces not really committed to the community it pretended to
>be a part of couldn't let that happen and the thing was derailed faster
>then Enron became a national laughing stock.
>
>Kill the head and the body will die. Nothing will get done till the DoC
>is taken out of the position of having absolute power. Or thinking it
>does.


But the DoC is the result of a political
process every bit as corrupt as the DoC is.

What we have is a systemic problem, one that
can be described by field theory.  To fix it,
we'll need a comprehensive approach.


>They had their chance, we've suffered 4 years of them screwing up
>and I think that's enough.


Agreed :-)

Jay.


>--
>   With foxes we must play the fox. - unknown
>  /"\ / http://www.vrx.net
>  \ /  ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN / http://killifish.vrx.net
>   X   AGAINST HTML MAIL/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +1 (613) 473-1719
>  / \  AND POSTINGS/ http://www.mbz.org http://www.dnso.com


+++

Jay Fenello, Internet Coaching
http://www.Fenello.com ... 678-585-9765
http://www.YourWebPartner.com ... Web Support
http://www.AligningWithPurpose.com ... for a Better World
-
"The first step is to penetrate the clouds of deceit
and distortion and learn the truth about the world, then
to organize and act to change it.  That's never been
impossible and never been easy." -- Noam Chomsky

Re: [IFWP] Re: Four more years... Four more years... Eight more years?

[A. Gehring]

Jeff,

Excellent work. btw Who is Steve Page?
Sounds familiar, but I can't quite place it.

ag

[IFWP] Re: Four more years... Four more years... Eight more years?

[Jeff Williams]

Pappas and all,

Yep, and that is the price that ICANN forced upon the stakeholders
for being so stupid.  But all in all this tentative agreement is always
open for renegotiations, though I doubt that that can occur now.
At least this gives the stakeholder to work with ELECTED officials
in government(s) to get things a little more slanted towards
the wishes of those stakeholders should the choose to do so.
I would say that this also makes the DNSO "Constituencies" defunct
unless the are very well funded and apply for becoming a PAC.



Pappas wrote:

> I meant that merely as an observation, not an endorsement.
> Eight years is a hell of a long contract.
> And if it's anything like the last contract, it will get stretched out to
> 11 or 12 years.
>
> --Matthew Pappas
>   [EMAIL PROTECTED]

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

[IFWP] Re: Four more years

[Kerry Miller]

> >What happened to the White Paper and Internet self-regulation? A
> >fairytale for the IFWP.
> 
> Ah. The McGovern campaign of the DNS.
> 


"Don't throw away your conscience."

(GMcG, quoted in _Words of Wisdom_ by William & Leonard 
Safire, 1989)