> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
> Patrick Greenwell
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 1999 9:32 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [IFWP] Re: Internet Governance?!
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Ellen Rony wro
>Mikki Barry wrote:
>
>> Constituencies need to
>>be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to
>>have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious
>>structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions,
>>true incorporation o
On Tue, 13 Apr 1999, Ellen Rony wrote:
> My prediction is that the constituencies will not be inclusive (e.g.,
> individuals denied in one case, non IP interests in another)
My prediction is that this bloated, byzantine "seperate constituency for
everything and everyone under the sun" model wil
Mikki Barry wrote:
> Constituencies need to
>be inclusive rather than exclusive. Individuals AND organizations need to
>have voices and votes. If ICANN is going to be a coherrent and harmonious
>structure, there has to be more enfranchisement of dissenting opinions,
>true incorporation of those
I agree that regulating content (censorship) isn't the job of
ICANN or the more openly democratic bodies that (I hope)
will emerge down the road. As for spam, however, I would
support a global ban on all email with false or misleading
addresses, plus a global rule for fast removal on-demand
from t
Jay wrote:
>For the most part, I agree with Tamar:
> "The Internet also must have a structure. The structure
> requires some governance--central authority to establish
> the rules of the game. The important decision is where to
> draw the line, and avoid standards that are not necessary
>
At 04:35 AM 4/13/99 , Esther Dyson wrote:
>I think the notion of any worldwide body regulating spam or porn or content,
>which should be regulated within commmunities, is scary. These are not
>issues that need to be decided on a worldwide basis.
I agree. But why should domain names be any diff
Esther is of course absolutely right. But Esther is ICANN has no wish to
extend the bounds of its authority outside of the IANA duties why are we
seeing the ICANN by laws written by sims in such a fashion as to allow the
bnoard to establish new supporting organizations?
>I think the notion of
Tamar and all,
It is surely clear that Governance can be a problem solving
mechanism, however as history has shown us, and is especially
true in the Internet media, Governance is not efficient as this
process itself has shown. None the less some form of
inclusive Governance is needed for the I
Governance can be viewed as an efficient mechanism for problem solving. If
spam is a problem for so many parties that a combined effort avoids
duplication and makes the solution less expensive, then a "governance" or
"self-governance" mechanism is likely to arise. Whether it will be
world-wide dep
Surely it is the economic liberalism fostered by internet trade in
commerce, ideas and content that means that either the question has
to be answered by global regulation or by some 'unseen hand'. There
was a test conference on racism on the internet sponsored by UNHCHR
in mid-1997 at which th
Esther, Jay and all,
As has been noted by literly scores of stakeholders to date, and are a matter
of record in your own ICANN archives, many are of the opinion that the
ICANN Interim Board, yes that includes YOU Esther, are acting in a
quite concerning manner, most especially in respect to the
I would agree here. I for one do not think ICANN should be
creating policy on content, be it SPAM, port or anything else.
that is something that should be left up to each country.
I would also state that as an ISP, I do not want to be Net.Police.
Esther, I hope you will keep this from being
13 matches
Mail list logo
