RE: [ga] Mr. Qaddafi Salutes Verisign

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

|> From: Joseph [mailto:fhlee@tm.net.my]
|> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2001 1:45 AM

BTW Joseph, your method of quoting sux.

|> > Let us not judge the U. S. on the basis of ICANN.
|> 
|> No one is judging the U.S. of A.
|> 
|> > In particular, the ICANN pretense to be making 
|> > international law by its various "policies" needs to 
|> > be crushed -- its role in that area is simply to
|> > obey U. S. law. It lacks the power to "be more 
|> > international" as Joseph requests.
|> 
|> Yes, but shouldn't one aim to be better than what one is 
|> restricted to? Shouldn't a bird trapped in a cage wish 
|> to break free?  

The three most useless words in the English language are, "should", "could",
and "would". Of those three, "should" is the most over-used. Items referred
to by those three words usually have nothing at all to do with reality.
Saying that you could/should/would do something always means that you
haven't done anything. Usually, it is because you can't do anything. Which
is the case here.

The bird in the cage that you mention would only get eaten by the cat. Cages
work both ways. I have a neighbor that protects their cats by caging their
Macaw (it's better armed than the cat and has a nastier disposition [it
actually hunts cats]). Now, can we drop analogies yet? They never work and
always confuse/side-track the discussion.

|> In Afghanistan, women has absolutely no (very little) 
|> rights under the legal system.  Should the women, under 
|> the existing law, subject themselves to such condition 
|> (and just accept "life")?  History is full of lessons 
|> of "being better than one is restricted to".

History is full of one major lesson, such laws and inequities are only
changed once blood is spilled. It never happens peacefully. The requisite
sacrifice is happening as we write this. Let us hope that it is sufficient
for the Afghanii women. What we are discussing here is not quite of the same
catagory. Such thinking is sloppy, at best. Have you always been this
muddle-headed or are you only grand-standing?

|> I am with the opinion that, although, currently restricted 
|> by the law, one should think about what should be better.  
|> To minimize any mis-communication, I would like to stress 
|> that you are referring to the present, while I am hopeful 
|> for the future.

Such ineffectual day-dreaming is exactly why we are in this mess in the
first place. Some yokels thought that they were above the law. Then the US
Congress stepped in and the Green Paper was published. Never mind that it is
these same yokels that run the ICANN now. They need to be reined some more,
according to law. They still don't get that they are not above the law and
that ignorance of the law is not an acceptable excuse.

ICANN needs to confine itself to the boundaries determined by the laws that
define its jurisdiction and it needs to quit pretending to the throne.
--
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