[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: ICANN Update

FYI, from the com-priv list:

At 03:21 PM 11/24/99 , Pete Farmer wrote:
>Jay Fenello [mailto:Jay@Iperdome.com] wrote:
> >Hi Pete,
> >
> >I see you're a student of the Dave Crocker
> >school of disinformation and innuendo ;-)
>I apologize.  My post was rather mean-spirited and unnecessary.  Permit me
>to make my point in a nicer way: I humbly suggest that you might benefit
>from increased discretion in choosing your quotes and cites; making the
>wrong choices can undermine your position.
>You note that as this debate has unfolded, you have "raised the ante" on the
>"meta issue" behind this debate.  Those meta issues include:
>- The relative role and power of nation-states and of economic entities
>(multinationals) in a global economy.
>- Mechanisms of power and influence in the American political system.
>- The concept of a underlying moral code for society.
>Wow.  These are wonderful topics for debate.  They're also too big for any
>human being to get their arms around.

Hi Pete,

While I agree they are very big topics
indeed, I haven't given up on them yet.

>In the meantime, we're faced with immediate issues: cybersquatters, new
>TLDs, etc.  What are we supposed to do?  Say "time out" on those issues
>while, through the medium of mailing lists, we sort out and solve the meta
>issues?  :-)

ICANN *is* addressing those issues, and
nothing I say or do is going to change
or influence that.

That's because the fix is in!  The game
is rigged!!  ICANN is a sham!!!

So, rather than *waste* my time trying
to influence the fraud that ICANN has
become, I'd rather focus my energies
on the meta issues -- the ones that
ultimately matter.

>I suggest -- again in a friendly spirit -- that in presenting counter-views
>to ICANN, you are limiting your efficacy by "raising the ante."  To me, your
>posts can be characterized as hand-wringing about meta issues that are
>unaddressible by today's institutions.

If a process is unfair, do you attempt to use
that process to address your concerns, or do
you attempt to fix the process?  I respectfully
suggest that the latter must precede the former.

What I'm arguing for is fairness.

[Why do you consider this "unaddressable by
today's institutions?"]

>I think you might have more impact
>if you made practical, flesh-and-blood proposals as to "what's the first
>thing we should do on Monday morning."  A journey of a thousand miles begins
>with a single step.

IMHO, "the first thing we should do on
Monday morning" is to begin an open dialog
about the unfairness inherent in the current
process to establish Internet Governance.

So, rather than discuss the definition of a
cybersquatter, let's talk about the influence
of soft dollars on the executive branch.  Rather
than discuss the introduction of new TLDs, lets
talk about the bias of big media in support of
multi-national corporations.  And rather than
bang our heads against the ICANN wall, let's
talk about how organizations like Markle can
positively influence ICANN, rather than give
it money and legitimacy.

Given the tremendous advantage afforded to those
who have accumulated money, power, and influence,
why must they resort to subterfuge to accumulate
more of the same?  For what higher purpose?

In actuality, this is really just an appeal to
the establishment.  We must remind those in charge
that the entire system works because people think it
is fair.  Once the illusion is gone, history shows us
that the system will be replaced through evolution or
revolution.  The Internet doesn't change this -- it
only speeds up the process.

In closing, while an individual's journey begins
with a single step, humanities journey begins one
person at a time.  For this reason, I will continue
to call them like I see them.


P.S.  Here's one from the archives:

At 04:48 AM 1/12/99 , Jay Fenello wrote:
>I believe that history can provide valuable lessons
>as we try and understand the very confusing process
>that we are currently involved in.
>In my previous posting, I described some interesting
>parallels with the early American Republic.  Here
>they are again, this time with their similarities
>described . . .
>The White Paper  <==>  Declaration of Independence
>Both of these documents started a process of changing
>the existing authority structure to a new one, one that
>was less centralized and more open than the one before
>it.  They both painted a future vision, a blueprint of
>their future world.
>Notice that more than 11 *years* passed between the
>signing of the Declaration of Independence, and the
>signing of the U.S. Constitution.
>Supporting Orgs  <==>  State Governments
>Both of these stakeholder groups had to quickly establish
>a way to govern their affairs in a hurry.  They had to deal
>with questions of control/funding/representation/etc. to
>quickly form an appropriate governing body.  They also had
>to figure out how to relate to each other, as well as a
>potentially superior organization.
>In the early years of the confederacy, the states were in
>various states of formation/organization, and there was
>much diversity in their respective founding documents.
>Over time, these states refined their structures, often
>taking ideas from each other.  Many of these concepts,
>including those on representation and citizen rights, were
>useful when the U.S. Constitution was drafted in 1787.
>ICANN By-Laws  <==>  Articles of Confederation
>Both of these documents were the first implementation of
>the concepts described in their respective guiding documents,
>the White Paper and the Declaration of Independence.
>While the states were busy getting their act together, it
>soon became apparent that the Articles of Confederation
>had some serious problems.  This combination of events
>ultimately lead to the creation of the U.S. Constitution.
>Mike Roberts  <==>  John Hanson
>Both were the first leaders of the first attempt
>to implement the vision outlined in their respective
>guiding documents.  For perspective, there were six
>leaders between John Hanson and George Washington.
>This reflection on history has given me some
>valuable insights into our current situation.
>First, this is going to take a long time.  It took our
>founding fathers over 11 years -- and at the rate we are
>going, it will likely take us the same (especially if we
>continue to use the same face-to-face meeting process
>that *they* used in the 1770's)
>Second, this is an iterative process.  We are going to
>make mistakes, many at first.  Welcome diversity, and
>learn from it.
>Third, realize that there are going to be power plays,
>legal challenges, governmental intervention, and all
>manner of other machinations.  Expect it, and call
>them as you see them.
>Finally, be happy.  These are exciting times, no
>matter how painful they seems right now!


Jay Fenello,
New Media Relations
http://www.fenello.com  770-392-9480

"We are creating the most significant new jurisdiction
we've known since the Louisiana purchase, yet we are
building it just outside the constitution's review."
   --  Larry Lessig, Harvard Law School, on ICANN