Re: [ga] politicisation of the internet

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Mr. Auerbach,
   
  5. to me is a bit convoluted so have patience. I grew up in a simpler place and time. A place where men were still seen wearing sixguns all the way into the 1960s. You could get expelled from school for foul language or talking nasty in front of a girl, but a good fistfight over perceived wrongs was tolerated with only corporal punishment. Therefor standing tall and taking care of those less fortunate or smaller or a girl or a Navajo who did not speak English well were virtues. Taking no guff also meant lettin nobody giff guff to another.
  So in this sense I find failure on behalf of my government. They have not stood tall and protected the world dotcommoner. When they accepted and now have faught for the right to be the big man on campus they have responsibilities to the netizenry of the world. They are failing. Professor Koffelt taught us that in every civil society, for every Right there is a corresponding duty. The USA gov must begin to live up to its' duties.
   
  e 

Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Hugh Dierker wrote:

> I would appreciate one smart individual showing me five incidents where 
> the USA Gov. interfered with an ICANN contract and or policy.

You mean things apart from the Sword of Damacleas effect of simply holding 
the authority over ICANN?

A few items immediately leap out:

1. Redelegation of .us
2. Interference with .xxx decision
3. Acceptance of ICANN's breach of faith with the internet community when
ICANN "reformed" itself and eliminated public participation. (This is
less interference and more abandonment of the government's side of
its agreeements.)
4. The recent resolution in Congress to keep ICANN and the control of the
net under the US umbrella.
5. Is an exercise left to the reader.


--karl--



  


			
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Shopping
 Find Great Deals on Holiday Gifts at Yahoo! Shopping