[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [names] The Public Goods Question
- To: Becky Burr <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "email@example.com" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Esther Dyson <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mike Roberts <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: [names] The Public Goods Question
- From: Jay Fenello <Jay@Iperdome.com>
- Date: Fri, 22 Oct 1999 13:10:01 -0400
- Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, DOMAIN-POLICY@LISTS.INTERNIC.NET, email@example.com
- In-Reply-To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- References: <380A28FF.E74CC048@flywheel.com>
At 12:28 AM 10/18/99 , Kent Crispin wrote:
>On Mon, Oct 18, 1999 at 12:06:48AM -0400, Jay Fenello wrote:
> > Who is John Galt?
>Hero of a turgid science fiction novel by a charismatic but shallow
>philospher, whose thought can be summarized:
> "A = A. Therefore, capitalism".
>Unfortunately, she leaves out all the intermediate steps in the proof.
>Why do you ask?
It wasn't meant to be a question!
It was a reference to "Atlas Shrugged,"
a novel by Ayn Rand, one that explores
the hypocrisy of those who claim that
the "public good" must supercede all
It's a world where private property
ceases to exist, where instead of the
invisible hand of markets setting
prices and services, they are set by
committees that force solutions that
favor their friends.
And whenever a rational person tries
to explain the irrational policies of
the "looters" and the bureaucrats who
support them, they would say "Who is
John Galt?" as a term of exasperation.
Craig's call for the confiscation of
all domain names was just too blatant
If anyone doubts that the collectivist
policies of ICANN are simply a way to
circumvent markets, so that a handful of
bureaucrats can bestow favors on their
friends, consider the case of the .edu
Top Level Domain.
Mike Roberts, current president of ICANN,
is a long time leader of the Internet Society,
an organization that has conspired to take
over the Internet since at least 1995, the
same organization that tried to implement
Mike is also a long time Washington insider,
and has been active in the Washington lobbying
scene for years through his affiliation with
It was through this affiliation with Educause,
that Mike rose to become an organizer of some
of the IFWP meetings. It was also through this
role on the IFWP Steering Committee, that he was
able to kill the wrap-up meeting that a majority
of the Steering Committee was trying to organize.
What wasn't known at the time, however, was that
Mike had already been approached with the concept
of ICANN, and was apparently offered the role of
And as this list has so clearly shown, Mike has
pursued the collectivist policies of the gTLD-MoU
Which leads us to .edu, a top level domain that
has been administered by Network Solutions. ICANN
has just reached an agreement with NSI, where in
effect, all of their TLDs have been "nationalized"
(maybe we need a new term -- "ICANNized").
Educause, as recently reported in the press, is
positioning itself as the new administrator of .edu.
Given Mike's long affiliation with Educause, few
doubt that this will indeed come to pass.
And while this hasn't happened yet, we are seeing
similar confiscations and redistributions occurring
among the ccTLDs. .au was the first.
These calls to protect the "public good" and
to punish the so-called greedy monopolistic
capitalists, is nothing more than subterfuge.
In ICANN's case, these calls for the "public
good" are being used as a mantra designed
to allow this confiscation to take place.
In closing, anyone wishing to see the logical
conclusion to these collectivist policies should
read "Atlas Shrugged." You will be amazed at
how accurately Ayn Rand described, nearly half a
century ago, the techniques of confiscation that
ICANN is using today ;-)
>At 03:52 PM 10/17/99 , Craig Simon wrote:
>>Principles to Guide ICANN's Delegation of gTLD Management.
>>1. The Internet naming system is a public resource and the TLD
>> space is an essential facility of the public Internet.
>>2. Correspondingly, the management of the root zone and of gTLD
>> registries must be performed on behalf of the public
>> interest in a manner that ensures the world-wide
>> interoperability of unique Internet identifiers and their
>> traceability back to the Internet's publicly coordinated
>>3. Accordingly, the WG-C affirms that no private intellectual
>> or other property rights inhere to an assigned gTLD itself,
>> nor accrue to the delegated manager of the gTLD as the
>> result of such delegation.
>>4. Furthermore, the WG-C affirms that the assignment and
>> delegation of a gTLD registry is subject to the ultimate
>> authority of ICANN.
>>5. Considering that, under the current applications of Internet
>> technology, mnemonically and semantically useful domain
>> names have become an important and convenient tool of human
>>6. Considering also that expansion of the gTLD space is
>> necessary to ensure there will be continue to be an abundant
>> choice of names available for people who wish to acquire
>> useful Internet identifiers.
>>7. Considering further that expansion of the gTLD space is also
>> necessary to ensure that current Internet users and
>> newcomers alike will be afforded the continuing opportunity
>> to communicate by way of domain names which have mnemonic
>> and semantic utility.
>>8. Considering also that domain names themselves are often used
>> as mechanisms for conveying normative expressions and
>>9. Affirming that ICANN should not be turned into an instrument
>> which imposes biased or arbitrary restrictions on political,
>> religious, and other normative speech or content.
>>10. Noting that ongoing work relevant to the specification and
>> documentation of best practices for the administration of
>> gTLDs is being conducted by various parties within the
>> Internet engineering community.
>>11. Expecting that this work will be completed and published
>> within an Internet Current Practice (ICP) series prior to
>> the delegation of any new gTLD registries.
>>12. The WG-C therefore resolves that new gTLDs should be added
>> to the root. The process of addition should begin with
>> between 6 and 10 gTLDs.
>>13. The WG-C further resolves that, as the first set of new
>> gTLDs is introduced, an impact study should be conducted
>> with a view to adding more in a reasonable and timely
>>14. Concerned that these principles receive proper and
>> legitimate exposure prior to their possible implementation,
>> the WG-C further resolves that no directive assigning a
>> delegation should be issued by ICANN until these principles
>> have been considered by a duly constituted and fully seated
>> ICANN Board of Directors.
>New Media Relations