Exactly where did ISPs directly
get any say in ICANN?
Jay.
At 12:56 AM 2/10/00 , Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
Large
membership is
On Wednesday, February 09, 2000 9:56 PM Kent Crispin wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
Large
membership is because that membership was defined too broadly.
The
fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the
Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old
Harry doesn't have any right to tell me how to run my computers
The airplanes and ships of the world are largely owned by private
interests.
My neighbor owns the largest grass seed farm in the world. While I may not
agree with the action his government brings against him, I do not believe
that because he 'owns' the land that he should be exempt from governance.
You're absolutely right. But we're not talking grass seen
(although many
At 12:17 AM 2/10/00 -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Regulation of the Internet is both legitimate and proper.
Who are you and what have you done with Karl Aurbach?
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Jay and all,
Let's be clear here. ISP's have now, nor ever endorsed the whole idea
of ICANN in the first place. To my knowledge the ISPC is not in favor
of ICANN. ISP's in Europe have basically ignored the ICANN by in large
and many strongly oppose it.
Jay Fenello wrote:
Exactly where
Karl and all,
Precisely right Karl! And ICANN does not seem to embrace this
approach. As a result I fear we will be doing this all over again,
or world governments will be so intrinsically involved as to take
over the regulation process. In fact we are already seeing some
of this and given
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Regulation of the Internet is both legitimate and proper. The question is
by whom, over what, what the regulations shall be, and what processes are
used to apply them.
No - that is a very incorrect assumption. Regulation of the internet is
Arnold and all,
Arnold, Kent is disturbing in general. I think he chooses to be as a matter
of being disruptive purposefully with his political diatribe that he has
espoused
repeatedly for several years. No surprise there. Consider his arguments
from that perspective, and you will have a
Jeff Williams wrote:
Karl and all,
Precisely right Karl! And ICANN does not seem to embrace this
approach. As a result I fear we will be doing this all over again,
or world governments will be so intrinsically involved as to take
over the regulation process. In fact we are already seeing some
OK, by whom, over what, what shall be the regulations, and what processes? If
they are not those of an international treaty organisation under international
law, or the private 'self-regulation' of ICANN under largely US domestic
oversight, what should they be?
Karl Auerbach wrote:
The
Mark and all,
Well the answer to you question is what ICANN and the International
Treaty Organizations are supposed to be, that being the STAKEHOLDERS
collectively and individually.
Mark Measday wrote:
OK, by whom, over what, what shall be the regulations, and what processes? If
they are
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:18:57AM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
[...]
ICANN has no authority to tell ISPs how to do things without their
consent. Though proponents of internet governance would like it to be
otherwise, it is the ISPs and other infrastructure providers that are
the
At 04:44 AM 2/10/00 -0500, you wrote:
On Thu, 10 Feb 2000, Karl Auerbach wrote:
Regulation of the Internet is both legitimate and proper. The question is
by whom, over what, what the regulations shall be, and what processes are
used to apply them.
No - that is a very incorrect assumption.
In the first case individuals have no significant power -- the GAC or
its successor will have all the power.
Really? They gonna send sombody here to change my nameservers?
Or are you under some misguided notion regulation and laws will
do that. Maybe you could test that theory on kiddie and
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:17:42AM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The
fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the
Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old
Harry doesn't have any right to tell me how to run my computers
The
Kent and all,
Kent Crispin wrote:
On Thu, Feb 10, 2000 at 12:17:42AM -0800, Karl Auerbach wrote:
The
fundamental complexity in this situation stems from the fact that the
Internet is largely owned by private interests. To be concrete, Old
Harry doesn't have any right to
At 01:26 PM 2/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:59:48PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote:
[...]
Hill:We seem to have a "fear of the masses." We don't have
to worry about capture through elections; people like
Berman in the CDT can go online and
Regulation of the Internet is both legitimate and proper. The question is
by whom, over what, what the regulations shall be, and what processes are
used to apply them.
It seems that some people are mis-interpreting this.
Sure, I believe in regulation. I believe in government regulation.
Today I braved the treacherous ice-flows of Cambridge to attend (along
with just 10 or 12 other audience members, unfortunately) the
roundtable held by Common Cause and CDT on ICANN At-Large membership
(http://www.commoncause.org/icann/). The elections expertise
represented in the room was
Hi Andy,
There was also a wide-ranging discussion of the idea of restricting
membership to domain-name holders. Several people pointed out the
potential skews: domain-name holders don't have the same interests as
users, some are huge (aol.com) while others are tiny, many hold
multiple domain
separately on each of the At Large Council slots. Hill pointed out
that this "majority of a majority" system means as little as
one-quarter of the membership could choose all nine of their Board
representatives.
Einar Stefferud has been pointig out this pitfall for as long
as ICANN has existed.
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 02:59:48PM -0500, Andy Oram wrote:
[...]
Hill: We seem to have a "fear of the masses." We don't have
to worry about capture through elections; people like
Berman in the CDT can go online and drum up a couple
hundred
On February 9, 2000, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
Thanks for the great notes - which from my sampling
via the webcast - appeared to capture the moment.
The general hostility to business and users was rather
disconcerting. They seemed to duck the fundamental
question of why some casual user with no
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At Large
membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That
You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street
to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry that he's a voting
member of
Richard Sexton wrote:
You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street
to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry that he's a voting
member of internet government?
Well, the image I usually offer is that of my teenage son being made a
voting member. His view is that
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
Large
membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That
You mean you don't think I should be able to walk across the street
to the Bannockburn general store and tell old Harry
not just those of us who own nameServers. We all ought to get in on the
voting. Even Harry.
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
- Mark Crispin
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED]
Science
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
Large
membership is because that membership was defined too broadly. That
You mean you don't think I should be able to walk
So you think only nameserver owners should be allowed to vote, Kent ?
At 09:56 PM 2/9/00 -0800, you wrote:
On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 07:08:56PM -0800, A.Gehring wrote:
Richard J. Sexton wrote:
I believe one of the reasons we are in Year 2 of ICANN without an At
Large
membership is
30 matches
Mail list logo
