Re: [wg-review] 11. IDNH

[Michael Sondow <msondow@iciiu.org>]

Eric Dierker wrote:

> The nominee for U.S. Attorney General has made it clear he will not stand for
> improper interference in the matters of a smooth flowing e-commerce.

So he will be granting ICANN police powers?

> I am not
> saying he will beat up ICANN to help us little ones.  What I am saying is that
> he will not want to be imbarrassed by arrogance at ICANN, this will be a new
> administration.

IBM and MCI didn't contribute to Bush's campaign fund? Are you sure
of that?

> Do you know anything about the new DOC appointments?

Nothing. Enlighten me. They are do-gooders from the agricultural
cooperative movement?

> ccTLDs can run almost independent of ICANN once the ccTLD is 
> accredited

ccTLDs are not "accredited". ccTLD registries are now accepted (or
not) by the national government, under the GAC Principles, which
give total authority over the registry to the national government
and ICANN, which is the national government's partner in the New
World Order.

> the
> authority ends there.

"Ends there"? What more authority can they have? They can put the
registry out of business from one day to the next. They can extort
huge fees from it. They can use it as a conduit for levying taxes on
the users. They can restrict the content flowing through its
servers. If they had any more authority there would be armed guards
at its doors day and night and video monitors in all its offices
being watched by hoodlums in the Department of Justice (this will
come soon, too).

> If you don't believe me ask Mr. De Banc if he can
> enforce and agreement with a marketer who is not accredited but endorsed by the
> country.

This statement is opaque to me. Do you mean that the registrars of
ccTLDs needn't be ICANN-accredited? How long do you think that will
last? In any case, I haven't noticed that Mr. de Blanc is
particularly astute when it comes to the politics of the situation.

> No sir congress people are interested in keeping their jobs.  Which Party
> supports ICANN and which one does not.

You're joking. They never heard of ICANN. You're suffering from a
case of exaggerated self-importance, a common form of ICANNitis.

> Let me suggest that if ICANN gets much
> more bad press, neither party will endorse their behavior, bad for 
> votes.

No party has ever supported ICANN's behavior, nor not supported it,
for the simple reason that the public doesn't know about ICANN and
wouldn't give a hoot if it did.

> If most of this group learns just how disenfranchised people like you are with
> regard to ICANN then the time spent in the group has not been wasted. 

I'll admit that there's a certain educational value to these mailing
lists, but it's very limited. More is lost than gained.

> I feel
> for your bitterness and have been moved to try and help your cause.  I have put
> my money, my time and my mouth behind working for a better 
> represntation base in ICANN and help fix the problem.

If that's true, I thank you. But you've wasted your time and money
if all you've got to show for it are a couple of Crispin-edited
recommendations ready for the circular file.

> That is at least one more than you had
> three weeks ago.

True enough.

> Visiting your site I could not help but think your visits got increased during
> this excercise.

Really? Maybe I should check my log file. I rarely do. Most of the
hits are by various manifestations of the National Security Council,
or by lawyers who want to plagiarize my critique of the
Registrar/Registrant Agreement.

> That also is a step in the right direction.  Merry Christmas
> Mr. Scrooge.

The same to you, ghost of Christmas past.

M.S.
--
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