Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
- Original Message - From: Gordon Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, September 10, 1999 11:37 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 > Then give us substance Diane. Use you lawyerly skills to back up > these vague assertions instead of always excusing ICANN's heavy > handedness. I have given a good bit of substance and a great deal of my lawyerly skills to the Membership Advisory Committee, Gordon. I'm afraid I just don't have enough time to task on more than that right now. I think it is unfair and inflammatory to say that I "excuse ICANN's heavy handedness." I have freqently corrected what I thought were inaccurate statements or deductions concerning actions that ICANN has already taken. Unlike you, I am not anti-ICANN per se, as long as I see progress toward a fair and representative organization. I *see* a great deal of progress from last summer. The goal hasn't been reached yet, but I continue to push for it. > > Some remote NGO. Isn't that just precisely what ICANN is? a very > remote NGO unless one joins in making excuses for its actions. Yes, despite the verbal fences from Ms.Dyson, I think ICANN will indeed be an NGO, particularly if (as appears likely) it mandates uniform dispute resolution. If so, I hope the structure will be better than existing ones. I've never been able to vote for a WTO policy or a UN delegate either directly or even at one remove. I expect to have that right as a member of the ICANN At-large. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta & Lund Boston > > > > >- Original Message - > >From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; > ><[EMAIL 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 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 of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US > > > seem to employ that favor big businesses. > > > > > > --gregbo >
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
>This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO. > >Diane Cabell >http://www.mama-tech.com >Fausett, Gaeta & Lund >Boston Then give us substance Diane. Use you lawyerly skills to back up these vague assertions instead of always excusing ICANN's heavy handedness. Some remote NGO. Isn't that just precisely what ICANN is? a very remote NGO unless one joins in making excuses for its actions. > >- Original Message - >From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; ><[EMAIL 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 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 of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US > > seem to employ that favor big businesses. > > > > --gregbo > > The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
On Fri, 10 Sep 1999, Greg Skinner wrote: > Richard Sexton wrote: > > > Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, > > I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled > > by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the > > same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or > > representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. > > > The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. > > Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due > to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For > example, had they focused their attention on building good relations > throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, > I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. It's a very salient point. The reasoning behind this is quite simple: the people behind ICANN see approval from the Commerce Dept., the EU, etc. as the key to success. While paying lip-service to the Internet community with talk of non-existent "consensus-building", transparency and representation, the goal is to garner government(s) approval, not do what is in the interest of the members of the community. > However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. > The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional > government. ICANN is indeed not a creature of "Internet self-governance." It is the result of a few large commercial interests and mid-level bureacrats attempts to avoid and abrogate the rights that citizens hold under the laws of their respective nations. The main reason that ICANN has enjoyed any success whatsoever is that ICANN has a convienent and willing "villian" in NSI, whose own ineptitude and ignorance of the Internet community has made it a convincing excuse for any action ICANN might take. /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell "This is our time. It will not come again." \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
At 07:20 PM 9/10/99 -0700, Greg Skinner wrote: >Richard Sexton wrote: > >> Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, >> I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled >> by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the >> same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or >> representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. > >> The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. > >Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due >to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For >example, had they focused their attention on building good relations >throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, >I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. That and the senior technical community not being wholly convinced ICANN is a good thing, that is. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions
Richard Sexton wrote: > Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, > I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled > by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the > same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or > representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. > The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. Not necessarily. It seems to me that the failure of ICANN is more due to the fact that they cannot act independently of established law. For example, had they focused their attention on building good relations throughout the Internet community, setting up an election process, etc, I don't think they would be in trouble as they are now. However, this doesn't strike me as an example of Internet self-governance. The wrist that slapped ICANN's hands was the old order of traditional government. --gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
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) falls, the process may >>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. >> >>--gregbo > >Many thanks, yes yes yes Gimme a break. I've watched IAHC fail for not being this very thing, I've watched IFWP try real hard to be just this then get scuttled by the IANA Cabal who are now ICANN and who will fail for the same reasons - it is not legitimate, open, transparent or representative of more than a couple of hundred poeple. The failure of ICANN is proof the process works. -- "So foul a sky clears not without a storm" - Shakespeare
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
This is my concern also. Or some remote NGO. Diane Cabell http://www.mama-tech.com Fausett, Gaeta & Lund Boston - Original Message - From: Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL 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 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 of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US > seem to employ that favor big businesses. > > --gregbo >
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re:November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
Many thanks, yes yes yes 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) falls, the process may >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. > >--gregbo
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
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.
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
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? > > Even the telecom industry doesn't have anything as pathetic > and wrong-headed as ICANN-GAC. True, but it doesn't mean they couldn't invent something... > > > The "process" we're dealing with here is in fact something > cooked up within the Beltway and whatever encircles Brussels. "Encircles"! Good word. Did I ever tell you the story/joke about the "Circle-fly"? If not let me know, I fill you in off list. Brussels and Geneva fit the scenario... >;) > > > --tony 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
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
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 pathetic and wrong-headed as ICANN-GAC. The "process" we're dealing with here is in fact something cooked up within the Beltway and whatever encircles Brussels. --tony
Re: [IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November Cook Report - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enabling ICANN
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 this, be it through a revamped ICANN or something else. The EU may be the only major stumbling block however... 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) falls, the process may > 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. > > --gregbo 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
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 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 of the laissez-faire regulatory policies governments like the US seem to employ that favor big businesses. --gregbo
[IFWP] please give us substance and not assertions Re: November CookReport - intro and part 1 ISOC's critical role in enablingICANN
Dave this is a perfectly reasonable comment. There is only one point on which I STRONGLY disagree with it. >you say: If ICANN fails it >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. Vint, Esther, John and other have said the same thing.the internet will be in danger, ecommerce will fail, etc is the additional undertone that has gone along with these warnings from senior net people. Hey, we are reasonable enough people to make our own judgements if you senior folk who claim have this specialized knowledge will just be good enough to share it with us. Let us form our own opinions which is just a different way of saying to you: please be good enough to defend and debate the assertions that you make. In the absence of such reasoned debate there are far too many other reasons to read into what then begins to look like the self-serving nature of what's going on. So look Dave. Do us a favor and let us know in detail *WHY* you fear what happens will be so much worse than ICANN. Myself - I cannot imagine what could be worse. Dyson, Cerf, Roberts, Patrick are pushing their own agenda pedal to the floor and are doing it in such a way as to rigg things so that participation of other people with other ideas is done in such a way as to render anything but the ICANN party line irrelevant. Government has requirements for openess and accountability that have been neatly and tidily surgically removed from ICANN. How can you not realize this? How can you keep defending them? Give us substance and not assertions please. >Gordon, > >My only comment is I wish the "unindicted conspirators" were as >devious and organized as you claim. My experience is that they were >not and still are not. I just don't believe that the ICANN Board (nor >did the ITAG or the ISOC Board) meets in private to plot the takeover >of the internet as I never saw or heard or attended any such meetings >and I have rather good spies. People were trying hard to find >solutions to difficult problems in a rapidly changing and complicated >world -- it is hard. > >Maybe we/they were/are incompetent at laying out a good course but it >was not for trying. > >I have a lot of unhappiness as to how ICANN is evolving but I just >can't believe it is being done for bad or evil purposes.I also repeat >something I said on an IP mailing manny moons ago. If ICANN fails it >will be taken as a indicator that the net can not manage itself and >we will get "Adult" supervision which believe me we will not like. We >must make it work. > > > >MY OPINION, > >Dave The COOK Report on InternetIndex to seven years of the COOK Report 431 Greenway Ave, Ewing, NJ 08618 USA http://cookreport.com (609) 882-2572 (phone & fax) ICANN: The Internet's Oversight Board - [EMAIL PROTECTED]What's Behind ICANN's Desire to Control the Development of the Internet http://cookreport.com/icannregulate.shtml
