Re: [ga] Old proposal

["Dennis Schaefer" <apsdps@mediaone.net>]

Hi Marilyn --

Sorry about the misdirect.  I was sure I had hit to Reply to
All. <G>

I can't disagree with you about the infrastructure consisting of privately
owned facilities.  But the ether that holds that structure together is
the public forum called the Internet -- which was built with taxpayer money.

So selling that public forum to private interests not beholden to
constitutional matters of
due process and free speech is roughly like letting the Ku Klux Klan rent
out the
US Capitol.

I am not anti-business -- just pro civil liberties.


>Dennis



----- Original Message -----
From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
To: "'Dennis Schaefer'" <apsdps@mediaone.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 6:51 PM
Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal


> Dennis, did you notice that this only went to  me? I don't mind, but I
think
> you intended to reply to Peter as well? Perhaps the group?
>
> The Internet is an infrastructure, isn't it, Dennis? Built of leased lines
> and other facilities, with an operating protocol, and connecting to
millions
> of content sources.  But it isn't a goverment resource.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dennis Schaefer [mailto:apsdps@mediaone.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:58 PM
> To: Cade,Marilyn S - LGA
> Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
>
>
> Peter --
>
> I find your suggestion completely appropriate.  While I understand
Marilyn's
> need as an industry representative to pin the label 'private sector' on
the
> Internet,
> the fact is that it is still a governmental resource whose privatization
was
> botched up by the US.
>
> A single worldwide Internet is a world resource for which ICANN should be
> the agent negotiating and defending the need for a worldwide transfer of
> sovereignty.
> A wholesale surrender to private business will not enhance the Net -- and
> might just
> ruin it.
>
>
> >Dennis Schaefer
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cade,Marilyn S - LGA" <mcade@att.com>
> To: "'Peter de Blanc'" <pdeblanc@usvi.net>; "'Kent Crispin'"
> <kent@songbird.com>; <ga@dnso.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 11:16 AM
> Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
>
>
> > Peter, as you know, ICANN isn't a UN treaty organization.  I'm not sure
> why
> > this would be a useful suggestion for other reasons, as well. It would
> also
> > seem to imply a governmental relationship.  Not, in our view as
industry,
> a
> > useful thing.
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter de Blanc [mailto:pdeblanc@usvi.net]
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 5:15 AM
> > To: 'Kent Crispin'; ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: RE: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > It sounds like all ICANN constituencies should have .INT domain names...
> >
> > NCC.INT, BIZ.INT, ISPCP.INT  CCTLD.INT  IP.INT  ETC.INT
> >
> > peter
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-ga@dnso.org [mailto:owner-ga@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Kent
> > Crispin
> > Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 3:06 AM
> > To: ga@dnso.org
> > Subject: Re: [ga] Old proposal
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 04, 2001 at 09:48:30PM -0500, Sandy Harris wrote:
> > > I recently had occasion to look at RFC 920
> > > http://www.cis.ohio-state.edu/rfc/rfc0920.txt
> > > |      Multiorganizations
> > > |
> > > |         A multiorganization may be a top level domain if it is
large,
> > > |         and is composed of other organizations; particularly if the
> > > |         multiorganization can not be easily classified into one of
the
> > > |         categories and is international in scope.
> > >
> > > My question is whether we should resurrect the "multiorganisation"
> > category.
> > > If there are international organisations meeting the criteria (and my
> > guess
> > > would be there are), give them all TLDs now.
> >
> > I believe that became "subdomains of .int".
> >
> > --
> > Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
> > kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> > --
> > This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> > Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> > ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> > Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> >

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html