Re: [ga] A Monroe Doctrine for the Internet

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Perhaps i do not know what arrogance means but, i do not believe in means;
Giving more aid to other countries than the rest of the world combined.
Transferring the "control" of the internet from government to a quasi-public entity.
Throwing the full weight of the Pac Fleet into rescue efforts after a Tsunami.
Obtaining the right to vote and go to school for "gazillions" of women for the first time in known history.
WWII comes to mind as something not arrogant, as my Dierker ancestors, gassed or luckily saved would know. 
 
But back to the internet Mr. Hauptman, you criticize but what is your alternative plan on behalf of your "bazillion" California constituents?
 
As for Countries you should have noticed while reciting the wars in Iraq and Afghan that you were writing in line with an Englishman, whos country is one hundred percent allied with "America" in such endeavors and who's trade treaties together help form the basis for the global communications networks that make this net and ecommerce work globally.
Which was following a line by a good Frenchman Jefsey who basically has always held we should work within the existing structure while perfecting alternatives internationally. And he sat on the GAC. 
 
Read some ICANN history and see just how captured the workings are by US interests. Chairman of the board is a good place to start.
 
Chau,
Eric
 

RBHauptman@xxxxxxx wrote:
I've been an American all my life.  And I can say without qualification that we are arrogant, self-centered, and think the world revolves around us.  That's why we are as hated as we are loved.  Our passion and zeal to impose everything on everyone makes my skin crawl.  And it's how we get into all these problems (killing a gazillion Iraqis and Afghanis among them).  We are Right and you are Wrong.  It's a pretty simple equation for those who are Simple.  And arrogant.
 
Rick
 
richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
Danny, are you American? Go figure...

But seriously, I am willing to see a continuing use of ICANN (with some
desired reforms) but there is no logic to the idea that ICANN has to have
just one "current steward" - the US.

Danny, I am not American. I do not think that the rest of the world should
be satisfied with ICANN being accountable only to *your* country.

Whatever makes Americans think that that's OK?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny Younger" <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
To: "Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

> As for me, while I can find some reasons for
> dissatisfaction with the current administration of the
> root, I cannot find a sufficient number of convincing
> reasons to delegate the stewardship of the root to an
> entity other than its current steward.

 

		
---------------------------------
 Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.