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
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
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
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
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.
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
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)
