Re: [ga] politicisation of the internet

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yes Danny I believe that proven terrorists should run a ccTLD on double sovereign Texas and USA land -- Not!! I bet you would not question this activity at all had it been in France or Vietnam on the sovereign soil of their nations.
  As to the second part; innuendo of DoC implied conspiracy control of ICANN makes for a great Clancy Op-Center novel but in reality it falls way short. For one, think of how the bowells of DoC are run or running ;-}. A bunch of underpaid non motivated bureaucrats. You could not pump them with enough, nicotine, caffeine and Viagra to get them to work that hard. For two think of the moronic ability of ICANN to act quickly and run a ccTLD - impossible without devine intervention, which to my understanding they have not applied for.
  Now reread Karls' notes on this. Inaction and sloth are the sins of the USA gov. Not overbearing clandestine operations.
  So we are stuck between a rock and a hardspot. Demand they give control to a world body because the maintain a laissez faire attitude or demand they excercise more control over ICANN. Funny but door number 3 looks a little better Monty, I'll go home with what I got Merideth - final answer.
   
  e

Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  5. Texas-based InfoCom was the sponsoring
organization of the .iq ccTLD. The US Government
acted to arrest its chief executive on
terrorist-related charges effectively knocking out
Iraq's namespace for the last three years. The MOU
calls upon ICANN for the sake of stability to take
over a registry's operations in the event of a
financial failure or other emergency. It didn't
happen. Draw your own conclusion as to the effects of
U.S. influence...



--- Karl Auerbach 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--
> 
> 
> 
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
  


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