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. 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. 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 should not be allowed to control the Internet. Anything the US Govt. would try to do would end up placing borders on the internet within the US alone, but would have no effect elsewhere in the world. 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. The government has no controls over whom my company's President will be and neither should they try to decide who will head up the Internet as the internet is a large conglamorate of multi-national corporations, individuals, societies, and consortiums, similar to my own company. If the Govt. doesn't like what they see, then they should not use the Internet and instead, fund their own private project without the assistance of the Internet members/staff/corporations If they so desire. If you like it, use it; if not, then get the hell out; but don't try to control it. Sincerely, Walter Benton ___________________________________ ?? _______________________________________ ??: Re: KIS ASS ???: Bob Allisat <bob at wtv.net> at &NWS-Internet ??: 98/02/02 12:32 Tony wrote:
Until yesterday, no-one had challenged Jon Postel's authority to do what he thought was best with regard to the roots, because he has earned the respect of those operators.
Over the last two years EVERYONE has ripped Postel's authority to shreds. And the pitiful respect of ten guys and a handful of IETF stiffs is irrelevant. Postel is deposed. What remains is to install the next regime. One which must be broad based and democratic. If any of you imagine what occured in the past was even remotely democratic you are deluding yourselves. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Fri Feb 6 13:08:40 MET 1998 ---------
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 ---------
Jay Fenello wrote:
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.
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.
I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General Electric? Ivan Ivan Pope ivan at netnames.co.uk NETNAMES * The INTERNATIONAL DOMAIN NAME REGISTRY Global Domain Name Registrar - gTLD Registrar http://www.netnames.com - http://www.gtld.com UK Freephone 0800 269049 180-182 Tottenham Court Road London W1P 9LE UK +44 171 291 3900 +44 171 291 3939 Fax Faster, faster, until the thrill of speed overcomes the fear of death. Hunter S. Thompson -------- Logged at Sun Feb 8 00:54:08 MET 1998 ---------
Ivan wrote:
I find it highly amusing that Jay Fenello, Bob Allisat and the rest of the AlterNIC crowd are suddenly all highly in favour of the USG and their plans. Of course, this is because they feel they will get a monopoly TLD out of it. I wonder what their attitude will be when the first five registries are allocated to AT&T, Dun & Bradstreet, EDS, Yahoo and General Electric?
The solution has always been to throw the doors open to competition amoung thousands of Independant Domain Name Registries. CORE sought an artificial monopoly. The USG has explicitly stated that they're opposed to such monopolies. As for the foolish technical and fiscal requirements contained in most other proposals I can only say: do your homework people. A Domain Name Registry/registrar can easily function with off the shelf hardware, relatively simple software and basic connectivity. AND still function with repect to the Internet and it's clients. For more on my views visit http://www.fcn.net. TeleVirtually Yours, Bob Allisat http://www.wtv.net -------- Logged at Mon Feb 9 10:38:49 MET 1998 ---------
participants (4)
-
bob＠wtv.net -
ivan＠netnames.com -
Jay＠Iperdome.com -
wbenton＠NWS.MEMOREX.CO.JP