Perspective for the future (was Re: [ga] Casting stones)

["J-F C. (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@club-internet.fr>]

Dear Thomas,
actually I think the bluff of the "AmerICANN Joke" is coming to an end. 
Please remember that this "AmerICANN Joke" was a quote from an European 
Diplomat, member of the GAC. It expressed a very simple idea: as long as 
the ICANN is no more detrimental to the European businesses than to the US 
businesses we had nothing we could act upon. The same for China, or Japan. 
I think the Mayor of Nagasaki told a lot today.

The situation is becoming too complex to know who is at advantage. So we 
are going to see different groups of interests to start fighting each 
others, new alliances - like last week - (unfortunately built upon new 
ignorances). This might be an opportunity to develop some new ways of using 
the Internet and probably a new Internet as well. After 20 years and a big 
development this would be in order.

jfc




On 01:13 07/08/02, Thomas Roessler said:
>On 2002-08-06 18:20:21 -0400, Michael Froomkin wrote:
>>Just about very US-based NGO person I know thinks time spent inside 
>>ICANN's hall of mirrors is now wasted time.  I can't blame
>>them.
>
>And what's your perspective for the future?  Replacing ICANN?  By
>what?  Direct government oversight over Verisign?  How realistic is
>that?
>
>All this talk about a re-bid, or about working around ICANN,
>ultimately boils down to the suggestion to replace the lobbyist
>battleground called ICANN by the lobbyist battleground called
>Capitol Hill.  Same players, different coast.  How's that an
>improvement?
>
>Bad enough, you don't seem to have any plans for the event that the
>battleground remains at the West Coast.  What's the NGO community
>going to do when ICANN reform actually happens, and the DoC renews
>the MoU?  Still continue to lobby for a "re-bid", focus on the meta
>level, and let Intellectual Property interests dominate part of the
>debate down on the detail levels where policy and architecture (*)
>are made?  (Yes, I know that things are more complicated.)
>
>As I wrote you earlier today: The argument that people don't listen
>is a hell of a lot more credible when you have said something. Not in year 
>1, but now.
>
>(*) Used like Lessig does it. Think, for instance, about thick vs.
>thin registry.  Thick registry does, in particular, mean that you
>can do some jurisdiction shopping as far as privacy of registrants
>is concerned.  That's much more difficult with a thin registry.
>--
>Thomas Roessler                          http://log.does-not-exist.org/
>--
>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
>
>
>
>
>
>---
>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.380 / Virus Database: 213 - Release Date: 24/07/02