Greg Skinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
"Richard J. Sexton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 02:03 AM 5/21/99 -0700, Kent Crispin wrote:
>> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 11:57:34PM -0800, Ellen Rony wrote:
>>> After a summer of international meetings in 1998, people believed that the
>>> selection of the interim NewCo board would be made by a PUBLIC process.
>Just as an observation, if I were Becky Burr, Elliott Maxwell, etc.,
>getting reams of emails with long distributions, consisting of nearly
>all included text except for accusations that such-and-such person
>does not exist, has embezzled funds from their company, etc., I would
>have problems taking the list seriously, if I were indeed reading the
>list at all. I imagine they are very busy, and do not have time to
>read endless amounts of flames. Not to say that everything on the
>list is like this, but there is enough of it that would potentially
>cause them to tune out.
They should be participating in the list and accessible to
the public about their complaints about this whole activity
of ICANN.
Instead Becky Burr and Elliott Maxwell hide somewhere and
they or others like the interagency committee that Becky is
on manipulate things from behind the scenes responding to
whatever pressure they are under, and which is kept well
hidden from the public.
The Internet is very important to the world. It was built
with a great amount money and public participation and work
of people.
The U.S. government has procedural means to deal with figuring
out how to create a protected institutional form for the names
and numbers and others standards functions of the Internet.
Instead they are handing them over in an illegitimate and
unconstitutional manner to some private entity, they claim,
which is unknown and unaccountable to anyone.
It's good that people send them email and complain.
It would be better still if Becky Burr would let the public
know what is really going on behind the scenes this great
giveaway.
>If this is the case, this is bad for the IFWP process (and email in
>particular as a step towards participatory online Internet
>governance), if it actually could have had more of an impact on
>ICANN.
--gregbo
The fact that the U.S. government is acting with such secrecy
and in response to and in support of the vested interests trying
to take over control of crucial functions of the Internet is the
problem, not the people who are trying to challenge this.
I wonder Greg what you think is happening? Do you think that
ICANN is an open process where the only problem is that people
are complaining? Why are you making excuses for Becky and
Elliot when they have failed to show any interest in any
legitimate processes or any concern for what happens to
the Internet.
Who is behind their hiding?
Why aren't they on this list and why aren't they responding to
the problems and trying to figure out how to solve them?
Is it that it is illegitimate for them to be carrying on this
whole process?
I did see in one of the comments in the Hearing on Domain
Names publication from the Oct. 7 1998 house science commmittee
subcommittee on basic research and on technology hearing
that it was ruled by the FCC that the U.S. government couldnt
set up a private corporation.
But that is what the U.S. government has done with respect
to ICANN. The U.S. government has created it. Thus they
are acting behind the scenes to cover that what they are
doing in illegal.
So the cc's to them are not the problem. Their illegal activity
with regard to the creation and support of ICANN is the problem.
Ronda
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6
