Re: [ga] .kids domain

[Alexander Svensson <alexander@svensson.de>]

Hello Leah,

L Gallegos wrote on 04.07.01, 23:27:23:
> I would not hesitate to write to the author of the bill regardless of
> where you live.  It may serve to put our legislature on notice that
> they need to pay attention to the global community and not just
> the US.  This may be an opportune time to make that statement.

thanks for your encouragement, but I remain skeptical
because I know from people who actually worked for
Congresspeople that they (have to) ignore e-mail even
from outside their /Congressional District/. To cope with
the enormous amount of incoming comments, sorting them
by location of sender is a simple strategy. For a North
Californian Representative, Grapevine TX is "not his
bailiwick", let alone Hamburg, Germany. That's why
the "Write Your Representative" system has been set up.

Nonetheless: To write to Mr Shimkus from outside the U.S.,
you can go to http://www.house.gov/writerep/ and select
"Illinois", for the ZIP code you can enter "62234" and "3019".
You should provide your real address in your message, since
any reply will be in written form, not per e-mail.

> This proposed legislation does make a point, though, doesn't it?
> How can ICANN claim to be a multinational organization and the
> root a global entity when it is owned and controlled by the US
> government? Isn't it, then, a US root with a huge market share,
> managed by a private US corporation?

I don't think private US corporations are evil per se, as
long as their actions and internal workings reflect the global
nature of the Net, and there definitely is room for improvement...
If the bill passes (which I think is highly unlikely), the U.S.
parliament has failed the litmus test for providing an
environment in which such an experiment as ICANN can take place.

> With ICANN not having to
> answer to anyone but the state AG and DoC and with DoC simply
> rubber stamping anything that ICANN decides per their stated
> policy, we seem to have just what was said at the February
> hearing:
>
> ...ICANN answers to no one but maybe God and perhaps not even
> to Him...

I don't think California's Attorney General or the U.S.
Department of Commerce /should/ have a decisive say
in Internet management.

> Also from the hearing:
>
> ["Mr. Pickering:  This is the dilemma for us and has been for the
> very beginning.  The reason we have ICANN is to avoid the APA,
> the Adiminstrative Procedures Act, as much as any reason.  We
> didn't want the APA to apply to ICANN."]

I remember Congressman Dingell referring to ICANN as
"the agency which we are constituting to act on behalf of
the U.S. government" in that hearing. Ouch.

> Open, transparent, bottom-up?
Way to go!

Best regards,
/// Alexander


--
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