Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
When pray tell did the Govt pay for my piece of the Internet. I do not recall ever getting any funds from them to pay for it. I sure would appreciate getting back my $70,000 spent on Internet stuff over the years. Somehow I expect you are not counting anything spent by non-govt people to mount the current Internet. Your arguments are totally bogus;-)...\Stef At 23:06 -0700 01/03/02, Ken Freed wrote: >Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone >company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist, >to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government >that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds >roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public. > >Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself. >Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the >Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance? > >Thanks for wisdom. >-- ken > > > > > > > > > > >At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: > >>And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by > >>governments. > > > >An interesting assertion. Can you back it up? > > > >First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development" > >to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking > >of the ARPAnet. > > > >At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the > >TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time > >they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet" > >it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded. > > > > > >-- > > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 11:06 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone >company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist, >to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government >that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds >roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public. The way telco laws work the Internet was in danger of being declared a public utility and therefore subject to ITU regulation and control. Rutkowski made sure it was declared a value added service; besides it dosen't all run over phone lines. >Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself. >Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the >Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance? Oh, there's a guy that knows all about it and can help educate you quite a bit. Write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and ask for Jim. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Examples are any nation on earth where the government owns the phone company, India for example. I'm more of a free marketeer than a socialist, to be sure, but by natural law, if the people rightfully own the government that constructs the network of interconnected networks, like a city builds roads that connect the private homes, this makes the Internet public. Let me raise a related issue, mostly to gather information to educate myself. Who can give details of development of Internet2, the next generation of the Internet? Where is the money coming from? What about its governance? Thanks for wisdom. -- ken >At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >>And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by >>governments. > >An interesting assertion. Can you back it up? > >First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development" >to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking >of the ARPAnet. > >At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the >TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time >they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet" >it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded. > > >-- > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 04:19 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by governments. An interesting assertion. Can you back it up? First of all there really wasn't that much "Internet development" to speak of. In fact it didn't exists. Perhaps you're thinking of the ARPAnet. At any rate, the UUCP network, which remains larger than the TCP/IP ARPAnet, was larger then the arpanet and by the time they'r all merged into what we now refer to as "the internet" it was about 1996. UUCP was never government funded. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
And outside of the USA, Internet development mostly was funded by governments. The U.S department of commerce had no right to make unilateral choices for them. The best way to get public accountability is to assert the Internet is a public utility, the same as the airwaves, subject to the will of the people, respecting our rights. As of now, we have governnment without the consent of the governed. A sham. It's always productive to stir the pot and get us thinking about such issues -- ken >False. Today's internet is the amalgam of multiple networks with different >histories. Many were private. Stand by what you like. > >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: > >> The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, >> then expanded to universities with government research contracts, >> then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges >> & universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. >> The net always was public property until it was decided otherwise, >> as public as the street in front of your house, which no one has a >> right to declare private without your (our) consent. >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >No they didn't, not mostly. No it doesn't even if they did if they didn't >> >retain title. ICANN comes fromthe government not the private sector. >> > >> > >> >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: >> > >> >> Did not the funds originally come from the government >> >> Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? >> >> I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >> >> private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. >> >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >> >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >> >> >>which is (was) public property. >> >> > >> >> >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. >> >> > >> >> >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >> >> >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. >> >> > >> >> >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >> >> >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >-- >> >> > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't >> >> > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. >> >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >-- >> >Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >> >A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >> >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm >> >-->It's warm here.<-- >> >> >> >> >> > >-- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm >-->It's warm here.<--
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Am I mistaken, or did the DoC's White Paper call for management of the domain name system by the private sector? And what was that ICANN Article of Incorporation about "lessening the burdens of government"? Jay Fenello wrote: > At 2/25/02 12:08 PM, Chris Chiu wrote: > >During a private "retreat," the President of the Internet Corporation for > >Assigned Names and Numbers, M. Stuart Lynn, proposed vast changes to ICANN's > >governing structure. These plans call for... national governments to select a third >of ICANN's > >reconstituted Board.
RE: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
>groups that own that resource, in this case the US people. So if the ccTLDs >are treated as public resources under the control of national governments, They aren't. rfc1591 waa skillfully worded to prevent that. >that part certainly cannot be said to be an interconnected private network. >Who owns the 13 root servers? ^ legacy Private companies, educational institutions (not all in the US btw) and the US military. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 02:26 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, >then expanded to universities with government research contracts, >then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges >& universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. You can stand by it all you want Ken, but absent some legal document that says it's true, it's just fantasy. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 02:06 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Did not the funds originally come from the government >Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? No. So did the funds for hydrogen bomb research. This doesn't mean you get your own nuke. >I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. No, undue influence has. Different people on the ICANN board would have yielded different results. They were picked behind the scenes, but Roger Cochetti of IBM (not at NSI, err, verisign) and Ira "Healt debacle" Magaziner and one of the criteria was that they not know anything about DNS. Who would have ever have though 4 years later that they still don't. Just as you cannot expect a valid conclusion from flawed premises, the problem is as much the board as it was Sims hopless structure of the current icann (RIP). -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
The Internet started in the military for decentralized communication, then expanded to universities with government research contracts, then expanded to state-sponsored universities, then private colleges & universities, then the general public. I stand by my first statement. The net always was public property until it was decided otherwise, as public as the street in front of your house, which no one has a right to declare private without your (our) consent. -- ken >No they didn't, not mostly. No it doesn't even if they did if they didn't >retain title. ICANN comes fromthe government not the private sector. > > >On Fri, 1 Mar 2002, Ken Freed wrote: > >> Did not the funds originally come from the government >> Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? >> I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as >> private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. >> -- ken >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >> >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >> >>which is (was) public property. >> > >> >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. >> > >> >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >> >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. >> > >> >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >> >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. >> > >> > >> >-- >> > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't >> > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. >> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> > >-- > Please visit http://www.icannwatch.org >A. Michael Froomkin |Professor of Law| [EMAIL PROTECTED] >U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA >+1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm >-->It's warm here.<--
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
Did not the funds originally come from the government Doesn't that make the Internet, defacto, public property? I have great respect for Tony, but construing the net as private has caused more harm than good, i.e., ICANN. -- ken >At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >>Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >>which is (was) public property. > >No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. > >Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet >was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. > >If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then >the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. > > >-- > Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't > change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
At 01:02 PM 3/1/02 -0700, you wrote: >Note: There was never a public vote to privatise the Internet, >which is (was) public property. No, it's not. It's a set of interconnected *private* networks. Tony Rutkowski went to a lot of effort to make sure the Internet was, in a formal telecommunications legal sense a "private" network. If it's a "public" network" (as the MoU people kept asserting) then the ITU has dominion over it. That's why Tony did what he did. -- Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[IFWP] Re: ICANN President proposes end to At-Large public elections
There goes Internet democracy ... At 2/25/02 12:08 PM, Chris Chiu wrote: >During a private "retreat," the President of the Internet Corporation for >Assigned Names and Numbers, M. Stuart Lynn, proposed vast changes to ICANN's >governing structure. These plans call for the abolition of ICANN public >elections and for national governments to select a third of ICANN's >reconstituted Board. > >See >http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/#highlights > >Sincerely, >Christopher Chiu >Global Internet Liberty Campaign Organizer >American Civil Liberties Union +++ 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
