Re: [ga] who owns the internet

[Eric Dierker <eric@hi-tek.com>]

I really think that we should add perceptions of the ordinary
billion users to this equation.  All of this is for not without usage.

What they perceive determines what the want or not.

ICANN has a perception problem as they do not care.

Marketing is education and Education is marketing.

Eric

Jefsey Morfin wrote:

> 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@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