Walter, Thank you for your perspective on this issue. While anarchy is the ultimate form of freedom, it too has problems. When it comes to the Internet, there are some things that *someone* has to decide. Top Level Domain administration is one of those things. Competition at the registry level is another. In the past, these types of questions were addressed through a kind of rough consensus process. Due to many reasons, that process has broken down. So we now face a choice: Do we want the new decision making body for the Internet to be the POC, or do we want it to be something else. Most of us who are familiar with the details of the MoU, as well as the behaviour of its leadership, are more comfortable with something else. With that as background, more comments follow: At 02:06 PM 2/2/98 +0900, wbenton at NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP wrote:
The Internet is the only truely nationally boundless thing in the world. What the US Gov. is trying to do is to bind it. As it crosses international borders, the US has no right WHATSOEVER to try and contain it. They can withdraw their monies and support for it, but they should not be allowed to control it.
I agree with most of what you've said, *except* the motive you attribute to the U.S. Government. After all, this *is* the same Commerce Department that has been leading the way in telecommunications deregulation. Some even suggest that this philosophy has been "exported" to the rest of the world, resulting in tremendous benefits world-wide. As an exercise, compare and contrast the ITU's contributions in this area.
Instead, they should work with various consortiums all over the world to come up with rules and policies that all should abide by and find some way to enforce those who do not abide by those rules, but as the internet crosses numerous borders, gaining the proper consensus (if there is such a thing) will be difficult.
I believe this is exactly what they are doing. And it *is* difficult.
Governments are only good at wasting taxpayers' money, white-washing the press and recently harassing women (oops... sorry, just had to put that in...) and
Two years ago, I might have agreed with you. My experience with this process has convinced me otherwise. Maybe there are some extremely dedicated and competent Government people involved with this one, or maybe the very nature of the Internet forces government to live up to our highest ideals. Whatever the reason, I think the USG process has been a good one. We now have a chance to work with it to effect the best solution possible, while being vigilant to the concerns that you raise.
The Internet currently works, and pretty damn well I think. If anybody is to reign over the internet, it should be made via a voting system by the users, for the users and with the users of that same Internet, not by any government.
That should be a big topic of debate. Representation is one of the most important questions on the table, and IMHO, all ideas and opinions are welcome. Regards, Jay Fenello President, Iperdome, Inc. 404-250-3242 http://www.iperdome.com -------- Logged at Sat Feb 7 02:30:26 MET 1998 ---------