RE: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC, TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections

[Roeland Meyer <rmeyer@mhsc.com>]

You're missing the point Bret. They actual infrastructure of the internet,
the wires, fibre, routers, and switches, are all owned by the ISPs. That's
what makes them ISPs. If ICANN owned all that stuff, they'd also be an ISP.
If you owned all that stuff, you'd be an ISP. The point is, you don't, ICANN
doesn't, and neither does the USG. Inter-ISP relations are governed by what
is called "peering agreements". Those are privately brokered deals. None of
us gets a vote there (well, almost none of us).

In truth, even the ICANN may be powerless against those facts, unless it
buys a stake in each ISP. Yes, the whole thing runs under a series of
corporations. Should it stay that way? I dunno, you tell me how to change it
...



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bret Busby [mailto:bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au]
> Sent: Monday, January 15, 2001 12:45 AM
> To: Kent Crispin
> Cc: wg-review@dnso.org
> Subject: Re: [wg-review] Clarifications requested from BoD, Staff, NC,
> TC,Chair prior to co-Chair elections
> 
> 
> Kent Crispin wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 02:24:57PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> > > Kent Crispin wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Jan 15, 2001 at 12:07:25PM +0800, Bret Busby wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >From the above, then, is my understanding correct, 
> that you also believe
> > > > > that all citizens should get equal say, and, thus, 
> that ownership of
> > > > > property (in this instance, domain names, trademarks, 
> etc), should not
> > > > > be a criterion for suffrage?
> > > >
> > > > Yes.  However, I also believe quite strongly that 
> citizenship and
> > > > suffrage are *completely* inappropriate concepts to use 
> relative to
> > > > ICANN.  One is a citizen of a state; ICANN is not a 
> state, and it
> > > > is not a government.
> > > >
> > >
> > > citizen - 3 US a civilian <square box character thing> 
> citizen of the
> > > world - a person who is at home anywhere
> > 
> > "a person who is at home anywhere" is not a useful 
> definition, sorry --
> > let's substitute it in your sentence to see just how absurd it is:
> > 
> >     ...you also believe that all persons who are at home 
> anywhere should
> >     get equal say, and, thus, that ownership of property (in this
> >     instance, domain names, trademarks, etc), should not be 
> a criterion
> >     for suffrage?
> > 
> > > suffrage - 1 a the right of voting in political elections 
> (full adult
> > > suffrage).
> > 
> > Sorry, we have a fundamental disagreement.  ICANN is not a 
> government,
> > it doesn't hold political elections.  It is a corporation.  
> People keep
> > forgetting that.
> > 
> 
> Right.
> 
> So, you are saying that we are run buy a corporation, and, that it
> should remain that way.
> 
> You believe that we, the people of the Internet, should have no say in
> its operation, but that we should be subject to the whims of a
> corporation.
> 
> Okay, then. Glad we got that sorted out.
> 
> ?
> 
> -- 
> 
> Bret Busby
> 
> Armadale, West Australia
> 
> ......................................
> "So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll 
> know what the
> answer means."
>  - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
>  - Douglas Adams, 1988 
> ......................................
> --
> This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
> 
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html