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

[Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com>]

On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 04:27:02PM -0500, Elana Broitman wrote:
> May I be so bold as to turn this thread back to where I believe it should
> head.
> Clearly ICANN is operating in a monopolistic anti-trust type of environment.

Yes, that is true.

> Clearly that is why it is important for it to move in the direction of
> a more bottom up, consensus oriented approach which includes those
> netizens who would be the victim if they are not adequately represented
> in ICANN.

That may or may not be true, but it certainly doesn't follow from the
simple fact of a monopoly existing.  As I pointed out sometime
previously, the remedy for Microsoft being a monopoly is not to turn
management of Microsoft over to an elected group of netizens and
computer users, and no one considers that as even a remote possibility. 

Likewise, it simply doesn't follow that the best model for ICANN is 
democracy.  Many people believe that the proper approach for ICANN is 
to simply facilitate competition in such a way that it is the MARKET 
that forces the monopoly actors to behave.  If things can be arranged 
in that way, then there is no need for the incredible overhead of a 
pseudo government.  

> You see if the monopoly really does represent all of it's
> customers in a fair and equitable fashion no one complains and everyone
> wants to participate in their monopoly. 

That is unbearably naive, and has almost zero relevance to the actual 
situation within which ICANN operates...

-- 
Kent Crispin                               "Be good, and you will be
kent@songbird.com                           lonesome." -- Mark Twain
--
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