RE: [ga] who owns the internet

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

On 00:56 27/12/01, Cade,Marilyn S - LGA said:
>As for 60% of users online time being "controlled" by 14 companies -- that
>seems to ignore the amount of time users spend online sending and responding
>to email -- still the most popular online activity, whether narrow band or
>broadband, at home or at work.

I am afraid you confuse the "time spent" with "used resources". Time is 
spent on the net on search engines, chat, webmail, sites. "time spent" 
actually means "time as being a target for real time spaming (advertizing)".

>As for what ICANN is responsible for, among it's other limited
>responsibilities, ICANN is introducing competition in the delivery of
>registration services; however, it has never had any oversight over the
>content of Web sites, nor the infrastructure which makes up the Internet.
>And, frankly, I would think that we would all agree with that!

I am afraid you are confusing the issues here. The fight is over the TM 
being repeated to the brains of the users. The emphasis on TM is only 
dependent on the UDRP and the pro-TM policy of the ICANN. Just 100 new 
gTLDs and the entire commercial picture of the Internet would be changed, 
becoming real and a true picture of the real world.

The problem is that the current balance in term of IP is - as shownn by 
this study - only favoring a dwindling number of large commercial actors to 
the detriment of all the other TM holders and commercial sites. JMM only 
shows that 96 commercial leaders of the Internet have lost their shirt 
under the present ICANN commercial management.

This means that the ICANN has lost 96 existing or real sponsors. This means 
loss in the BC Membership. This means disadventages for the IPC Members.

>No one, not ICANN staff,ICANN board, nor ICANN stakeholders, wants to turn
>control of access to content and content on web sites,  over to anyone other
>than themselves!  I would think that one of the general areas of agreement
>among the diverse ICANN stakeholder community.

The first agreement in this stakeholder community is that the proper order 
is ICANN stakeholders, then ICANN GoD and then ICANN staff.

Should that agreement be enforced, the joke of the 2000 MdR meeting 
allocating TLDs for their contents would nevar have occured, RFC 920 would 
be enforced, NSI would still be what it should be: a pool of secretaries 
registering names in a database.

Tss, tss, tss. We all know that most of the so called ICANN policy comes 
from agregating your personal lobbying, Mike Roberts positions and Joe Sims 
protection of Jones Days interests. We all also know that there is some 
good rationale for that as this could have lead to a certain stability. The 
people asking for the protection of the Princes. Unfortunately we see here 
that this protection does not work and - dramatically reducing the number 
of Princes - dramatically reduces the protection and pave the way to the 
remaining Princes tiranny.

In quoting that figures I did not think you would fight me. I though you 
would take it as a serious warning for your company, because this means 
that the market is becoming dangerous for AT&T. One among 110 is OK. One 
among 14 is far less confortable. At this speed, the net will be lead only 
by two or three companies next year. This only means one thing: the net 
will react and swicth to a new configuration, by-passing these three majors 
leaving them with a dramatical loss. Let suppose that MS, SAIC and ATT are 
these three leaders: MS will not survive a massive switch to a free stand 
alone system architecture, SAIC will not survive an open DNS and states 
sponsored webs of trust, and ATT will not survive a massive use of HiWi and 
legal obligations to reduce the costs of accesses, three likely 
architecture creeps we may observe speeded up by contents take over. With 
likely massive media, people and States support under such circumstances.

Jefsey

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jefsey Morfin [mailto:jefsey@wanadoo.fr]
>Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2001 1:53 PM
>To: ga@dnso.org
>Subject: [ga] who owns the internet
>
>
>"Big corporations have a significant and growing presence on the Internet.
>In March, just 14 companies controlled 60 percent of users' online time,
>down from 110 companies two years earlier, Jupiter Media Metrix found.
>Policy decisions and technological developments in the next year and beyond
>could give big business even greater power in the online world."
>
>This shows the failure of the ICANN which was supposed to foster
>competiton... I do not know if an other politic could have done better. But
>this certainly explains the frustration of many.
>
>May be the author went confused with his words: "technical decisions for
>political development"  would better explain the situation.
>
>Jefsey
>
>--
>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