Re: [wg-review] dndef, 9

[Eric Dierker <Eric@HI-TEK.COM>]

Thank you Kent,

Point well taken. I came from Arizona, in this "great capitalist nation here
is a state with over 80% government ownership of land." sorry but i
attribute this statement to me .
let us be clear on public and private. No let us be careful of the
difference between public and private and government and corporations.

the definition concept should be left to other minds more relaxed and
knowledgeable than ours. lest this contractual monster bite us with
pleasure.

Sicnerely,

P.S. you see kent we do learn.

Kent Crispin wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 02, 2001 at 06:05:58PM -0500, Sotiropoulos wrote:
> > Just adding a point to my preceeding note:
> >
> > Miles B. Whitener wrote:
> >
> >  > What I am saying is like
> >  > this: if I own a physical network (here,
> > the Internet), then I
> >  > can dictate, generally, how services
> > (here, DNS, as run on port
> >  > 53) are to be used.
> >
> > If the State owns the highway, they can tell
>
> Yes, but the STATE DOESN'T OWN THE INTERNET.  Hence your analogy is
> meaningless.
>
> > you what height your
> > vehicle can be to use it (due to overpasses
> > etc..).  The State can also
> > tell you what type of vehicles they want
> > driven on it (i.e. ones that
> > don't pollute, hence, emission controls).
> > The State can also tell you
> > how fast you can drive, and can give you
> > speeding tickets if you disobey.
> >
> > BUT the State cannot tell you which car (in a
> > perfectly legitimate car
> > market) you can or cannot buy.
> >
> > **Finally, the State cannot tell you that you
> > do not own the car *you* bought and paid for.
>
> Right, but if it was *your* private road, and *you* owned it, then you
> *could* tell someone else what kind of car they could drive on *your*
> road.  It is your *right* to be able to control what kind of traffic
> goes on *your* road.  That is the essence of free enterprise.
>
> The Internet is largely owned by private enterprise, and *we* don't have
> any right to dictate to other private parties how to run *their*
> businesses.  They will listen to us as *customers*, but not as
> *regulators*.  That is why this insistance on "control" is so stupid.
> ICANN doesn't have the right or the legal authority to tell private
> businesses how to run their businesses.  That's why having
> representative government-like structures in ICANN doesn't add anything
> to its legitimacy -- we as at-large members of ICANN have no right to
> dictate anything to these independent businesses.
>
> The Internet is not public property.  It is private property.  (With
> some small caveats -- in some countries *part* of the Internet
> infrastructure is public property. But there is far far more private
> ownership of the Internet than there is public ownership.)
>
> I'm sorry to keep harping on this.  But it is an absolutely fundamental
> point, and it is necessary to understand it in your bones before you can
> even think of trying to modify ICANN's structure.
>
> --
> 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

--
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