Re: [Membership] Why not ISOC?

[Ronda Hauben <ronda@panix.com>]

Eric Weisberg <weisberg@texoma.net> wrote:

Elliot Nesterman wrote:
> 
>> The same can be said of ISOC. 

>Yes.  And, I have.

>However, my mere suggestion of the ISOC model suffered a
>cool reception at Reston and the suggestion of making ISOC
>the general membership has not received any support in
>subsequent posts.  Perhaps these are some of the reasons:

>*  ISOC has an "entrenched" management/establishment and
>would not be an easy horse for the ICANN management and
>expanded membership to ride.  Indeed, ISOC might end up the
>rider and ICANN the horse.

>*  ISOC is not perceived as a level playing field for all
>interests and individuals.  There are significant
>constituencies which would not care to be in ISOC's stable.  

(...)

What's more - ISOC shows what happens with a membership
organization even when it doesn't have assets that control
the Internet and are worth billions (as the IANA assets are
in private hands)

ISOC shows how a small set of people or interests control
such an organization even if it is a membership organization.

Thus it makes clear why making ICANN a membership organization
cannot protect the controlling assets of the Internet from
falling into the hands of a very small set of interests who
thereby take them to enrich themselves at the expense of 
the Internet and the Internet community.

This issue was spoken to at the January Berkman Center meeting in
Cambridge, by one of the panelists explaining how a membership
organization is totally inappropriate in a situation where
there are such economic powers over people at stake.

What's interesting here as well- is it that this membership 
list is coming out of isi.edu a site at the University
of Southern California?

>From membership-owner@ISI.EDU Tue Feb 16 11:59:55 1999

Yet ICANN is *not* an edu entity.

But ICANN is moving to take over and make private all that
has been publicly held as part of IANA - which includes
the isi.edu domain as well as other aspects.

This is what we can expect. Hidden behind ICANN is
controll by other forces -- and behind which the hidden 
hand of the U.S. government and the NTIA stand and operate.
(And they operate in a way to illegitimately and 
unconstitutionally enrich certain private interests
at the expense of the public. That is some of the reason isn't 
appropriate that they be allowed to hide. The U.S. government
has tremendous power and if it is hiding what it is doing
this power is very harmful. Otherwise it wouldn't be hiding.)

My proposal is still the only proposal that has taken into
account the real situation and problems and proposed a structure
and a prototype to begin to deal with them.

It is at the NTIA web site and at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/other/dns_proposal.txt

The NTIA had the obligation to support my proposal as it was
submitted in time to it and it provided for a stucture and 
process to figure out the real problems and figure out how
to begin to solve them with regard to IANA.

It still has that obligation.

My proposal was based on knowledge of how the Internet and Usenet
have developed and how to learn from that development toward
figuring out the needed form and prototype to grow IANA.


Ronda
ronda@panix.com



             Netizens: On the History and Impact
               of Usenet and the Internet
          http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook/
            in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6