[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [names] The Green Paper vs. The White Paper (was: Summary Notes from NAMES)
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Subject: Re: [names] The Green Paper vs. The White Paper (was: Summary Notes from NAMES)
- From: Leon Koay <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1999 13:53:28 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- In-Reply-To: <email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Ah, yes...the "success of the American model". Is it always true that what
works for the 220 million of one nation, should equally work for the 6
billion of 190 nations? Why is it that soccer is known as football
everywhere else but in the US (and maybe Canada)?
At 12:56 PM 10/18/99 -0400, Jay@iperdome.com wrote:
>Early this semester, the Harvard Law School
>invited approximately 20 ICANN supporters and
>critics to participate in its IS99 class.
>Historically, ICANN has refused to acknowledge
>or respond to its critics. In this class, however,
>ICANN has attempted to justify its prior decisions
>and its decision making process.
>What follows is a summary of the many revelations
>that have occurred in this class. Anyone wishing
>to read the unedited version can see all of the
>comments via the following newsgroup:
>At 01:46 AM 10/11/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>>After almost a month's worth of discussions,
>>a Harvard Law class list has generated much
>>controversy between ICANN's president and
>>council, and several of its many critics.
>>First, Mike Roberts, president of ICANN, admitted
>>that a certain business model would not be considered
>>by ICANN, in direct contradiction to the ICANN By-Laws.
>>Then, Joe Sims, corporate counsel to ICANN, became
>>abusive after he was questioned on ICANN's processes
>>to date, or rather, lack thereof.
>While Joe has steadfastly refused to answer some
>very basic questions about ICANN's most egregious
>decisions, he has revealed the error that he uses
>to justify ICANN's current direction.
>It all started when, in an attempt to steer the
>conversation away from past excesses, Joe demanded
>"stop posting this drivel, stop fighting last year's
>battles, and start engaging in substantive debate."
>Of course, last year's decisions *were* substantive, as
>they set in motion a long chain of assumptions that have
>a profound impact on the future of Internet Governance.
>In addition, they were made in direct violation of ICANN's
>founding documents, and they resulted in a gerrymandered,
>gamed and captured DNSO.
>While trying to justify these actions, Joe said "the White
>Paper reflected the fact that the vast majority of those
>that commented on the Green Paper completely rejected its
>Of course, that was incorrect as well.
>The Green Paper was the result of an extensive
>U.S. Government sponsored inquiry into the Internet
>Governance question. It was an attempt to resolve
>the dispute between the supporters of the gTLD-MoU
>(another governance proposal), and the pro-US and
>pro-small business interests.
>The gTLD-MoU was widely recognized as an inappropriate
>power grab that would have transferred all authority
>over the DNS to a Swiss-based cartel, run by a small
>group of people using the same model as the Olympic
>When the Green Paper overturned the gTLD-MoU, it came
>under severe attack from those supporting a pro-European,
>pro-Socialistic, pro-Regulatory approach to Internet
>governance, and it was panned by the European power base,
>the gTLD-MoU supporters, and the popular media. It was
>also tied to the redirection of the Root Servers by Jon
>Postel, in what many considered to be a warning to the
>So, the U.S. backed down to the White Paper,
>a more geopolitically neutral document.
>Instead of deciding the divisive issues, the White
>Paper laid out a framework for self governance, with
>the stated intention that this self governance would
>fairly decide these issues.
>Now, according to Joe Sims, the backers of ICANN
>believe that the White Paper was a victory for the
>gTLD-MoU forces, and a defeat of everything that the
>Green Paper stood for. They have used this to justify
>their agenda to implement the gTLD-MoU, without any
>regard to other community input.
>In actuality, the evolution of the Green Paper to
>the White Paper, did not overturn the positions in
>the former. It only deferred those decisions to the
>consensus of the community, as defined by a duly formed
>ICANN has circumvented this process.
>This, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with ICANN.
>So, as we sit at this crossroad between a U.S. based
>approach to Internet governance, and a pro-European,
>pro-Socialistic, pro-Regulatory approach to Internet
>governance, I'd like to once again quote Newt Gingrich:
> >Lastly, I believe deeply, with all of my heart, that the United States has
> >to lead in the world. I believe we have no choice. I think as a country
> >and as a movement, we have to take seriously the principle, not just that
> >we were once anti-communist, not just that before that we were anti-Nazi
> >and anti-fascists, but that we are pro-freedom, that we believe that every
> >person on the planet has been endowed by God with the right to be free.
> >They've been endowed by God with the right to be safe. And they've been
> >endowed by God with the right to pursue prosperity and pursue happiness.
> >This has been a remarkable country -- people who came here for freedom,
> >people who came here for religious liberty, people who came here for the
> >right to pursue a better life. This is a country which has said to the
> >entire planet, "You have a chance. You matter. You are a real human
> >being." From the founding fathers, to the American Civil War, to the
> >oration of Lincoln, to the willingness in the First and Second World Wars,
> >to 50 years of sustaining the Cold War to defeat the Soviet empire, to the
> >civil rights movement that insisted that all Americans had the right to
> >vote, the right to work, the right to buy a house. Over and over, for 220
> >years, and if you go back to the Colonial Period for another 150 years
> >before that, there has been a constant, daily effort to create greater
> >freedom, greater safety, and greater prosperity. It is a struggle which
> >will never end.
> >We are very lucky. We stand on the shoulders of generations who have
> >bled, worked, thought, argued, fought passionately in politics as well as
> >war. I think the challenge to us is to lift our eyes from the bickering of
> >Washington, the negativism of the elite media, all the temptations of
> >political schism, to recreate for the American people the dream that all of
> >us can be free and safe and prosperous, and to offer policies that work,
> >based on principles that are sound, based on values that are universal.
> >And I think that if we will do that, then just as Ronald Reagan over a
> >20-year period moved this nation, I believe we will, in fact, give this
> >country a fabulously better future, and through our example, give the
> >entire human race the opportunity by the middle of the century to be free,
> >safe and prosperous.
> >I believe that is our moral calling.
>Our choices today are, emulate the success of the
>American model, or capitulate to the collectivists
>who prefer mediocrity and control.
>Let's hope we choose wisely.
>New Media Relations