[atlarge-discuss] Re: ICANN patrimony - the mighty five:

["Richard Henderson" <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>]

Stunningly honest and decent.

Thank you for your comments, and I'd just like to reaffirm my deep respect
for the ordinary people of America, who in many ways illustrate superbly the
values of kindness, hospitality and the desire to good (at least, that's
been my experience of Americans I've known and befriended, among whom I
count some of my closest friends).

I just hope the real people of America get told the message about how ICANN
has been used, and about the millions of users all round the world who want
to share with Americans in the administration and development of a great
ideal.

Once again, Ray, thanks for integrity. I guess, though, that the
responsibility for the "message" rests not just with Americans but with all
of us. We in Britain value the US as our close friends and cultural family,
and we will develop as an At Large in the UK to get this message across -
reasonably, persuasively, insistently - with a quiet determination.

As Jefsey often says, we should all be proud of our nations, and together we
can work to construct an Internet World System guarded and protected by the
At Large World community. Here in Britain, I extend the hand of friendship
to America. I am extremely proud of being British, but I believe in a world
where we can all stand tall.

In the dark days of the 1940s Americans (along with Canadians, Australians
and other nations) came to the aid of freedom. We ourselves, in Britain,
were already DEFIANT!!!

To call on the words of Churchill, and apply them to the minions at Icann -
"We shall fight them in the fields, we shall fight them on the beaches, we
shall NEVER surrender."

Now, let's keep up the fight.

We, from all nations, are the people of the world!

Richard H

----- Original Message -----
From: Ray Fassett <ray@fassett.org>
To: <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Cc: <ray@fassett.org>; <JimFleming@ameritech.net>; <yjpark@myepark.com>;
<steinle@smartvia.de>; <richard@vrx.net>; <richardhenderson@ntlworld.com>;
<love@cptech.org>; <karl@cavebear.com>; <k@widgital.com>;
<joppenheimer@icbtollfree.com>; <terastra@terabytz.co.nz>;
<baptista@dot-god.com>; <jo-uk@rcn.com>; <eric@hi-tek.com>;
<Elisabeth.Porteneuve@cetp.ipsl.fr>; <Bruce@barelyadequate.info>;
<andy@ccc.de>; <shore@quasar.net>; <espresso@e-scape.net>
Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: ICANN patrimony - the mighty five:


> Jefsey:
>
> This is all very idealistic, and I mean that complimentary.  I can pick
out
> many pieces and say that I agree.  I think we all can agree, regardless of
> nationality or political beliefs, that what you describe does not exist
> (where ICANN is concerned).  Where you and I can agree is that the United
> States is largely to blame for this.  As a U.S. citizen, taxpayer, and
> voter, I am partially responsible for this and to be held accountable by
> default.  U.S. citizens and entities have the power to force ICANN to be
> accountable to U.S. laws that currently allow it to exist.  We (U.S.
> citizens) have not done a very good job of this but even 5 or 7 years is
> not a long time in this very fast paced medium.  What we (U.S. citizens)
do
> not have the power to do is push the ICANN entity into some different
> international arena or on to some other sovereign government jurisdiction
> such as Switzerland.  Idealism aside, it is time for U.S. citizens to
> accept their responsibility where ICANN is concerned and make it
> accountable to the checks and balances of its jurisdiction that allow it
to
> exist.  These are the parameters as they exist today.  Should these
> parameters change - and I can certainly make the case that I would rather
> just dump it all elsewhere - I would be glad support all that you say.  I
> will also say that it the quasi-governmental idealism that you infer that
> has helped tie the hands of the checks and balances of U.S. law where a
few
> people have been able manipulate to gain leverage in its nascent
> beginnings.  We (as in the global population) are feeling the effects of
> this today.  It is time for this to stop and U.S. citizens are the ones
> with this burden in today's landscape.  There is no accountability where
> ICANN is concerned. U.S. citizens have allowed it. And this has to change.
> And it will change if for no other reason than the people, regardless of
> where they live, will not be governed by an entity they will not
> recognize.  ICANN is living proof of this right now.  Americans (and its
> laws) do understand this concept.  But to continue to allow the most basic
> of democratic beliefs to go unchallenged in the short term because of this
> mere fact has got to stop and is indeed the responsibility American
> citizens have under the current landscape.  In the short term, ICANN must
> be held accountable to the people and laws that allow it to exist and this
> has not been the case.  U.S. citizens are to blame.  This may not be
> popular to non-Americans but the results are clear and evident.  If you
> have a better solution for today of clear accountability including checks
> and balances in the ICANN arena towards the goals you describe, I will be
> glad to hear them.  But chasing such a thing where no boundary exists has
> proven elusive at best and American citizens have been left holding the
bag
> of responsibility for this.  Whereas I will accept blame and
> responsibility, I have also lost all confidence in the quasi-governmental
> approach of mere cooperation and will rather move to a process today that
> is proven and with precedent with the understanding that people -
> regardless of where they live - will not be governed by a single,
> centralized entity they will not recognize.  Again, idealism aside, this
is
> already being proven in full view for all to see.  The buck has to stop
> somewhere and through various legal and other manipulation that has been
> allowed to go on, has been a moving target to the detriment of the very
> things you describe.  Criticizing American politcal influence outside its
> borders is, to me, an easy trap to fall into given the inherent
> functionality of the Internet medium...but we've seen the results where
> accountability does not exist because the Internet is this new, different
> invention that crosses borders and thus should not be subject to precedent
> of any particular sovereign country.  This approach has created a fertile
> playing ground of greed and manipulation of a chosen few.  You need to ask
> yourself why accountability does not exist in the ICANN realm before just
> criticizing a viewpoint such as mine that desires for clear accountability
> to exist.  We all share the common thread that we have been manipulated
> because the Interent is an invention like the world community has never
> seen.  Holding today the ICANN entity accountable to precedent within the
> jurisdiction that allows to exist - including its courts of law - is the
> first step to cooperation and global participation (some might call
> legitimacy).  Whether this jurisdiction changes in the future will be up
to
> the people that cooperatively participate and conform the community.
Under
> the current landscape and processes, it seems inevitable to me that the
> Interent medium will become what some term as "fractured" thus requiring
an
> international treaty type organization such as the ITU to "coordinate" for
> global interoperability.  In the meantime, American citizens are caught in
> a catch 22:  we get bashed for undue influence while at the same time its
> systems for checks balances have been rendered almost useless by a
> manipulating few people supposedly representing the international
> characteristics and "best interests" of this new medium.  By almost all
> measures and opinion, it's not working and is indeed doomed to failure.
> Personally speaking, it has been a complete embarassment to first learn of
> and then watch right before my eyes.  These are my own personal opinions.
>
> Ray
>
>
> > Dear Ray,
> > I think you are fully correct. ICANN has de facto an USG Agency
> > mission.  Actually it is the real USNIC. As an US Internet agency its
> > normal role is  to advise the USG over Internet issues. The question to
> > know if its policy  is US politically correct is an US problem. You
> > right it may only be  challenged under the US law. You are totally
> > right.
> >
> > Where I think you may have an incomplete reading is about the US law
> > and  doctrine which is not mine, but which is consistent, bold and
> > smart.
> >
> > As a non-US citizen concerned by these US matters for a quarter of
> > century,  I have an external point of view. All the more than the US
> > position  challenges my own rights (what you probably don't perceive
> > the same way)  and the US culture is, in part, for me societally 40
> > years late.
> >
> > The US/People/Congress doctrine is very consistent for 30 years,
> > actually  for 230 years. There is an US way to understand commonship
> > and leadership  (the basis of any network) as there is a Roman, Jewish,
> > French, British  etc. way.
> >
> > There are three types of network systems: centralized, federal,
> > confederal.  USA have fought their only civil war over
> > confederal/federal understanding  and have a very centralized doctrine
> > when international issues are  concerned: USA as the core (this roots
> > very far as we see it today).
> >
> > This translates into your thinking and your laws. As infrastructural
> > and  very basic Internet is not depending upon partisan positions: only
> > very  traditional Republican/Democrat touches all of us learned at
> > school (it is  impressive to see verified, as a very stable elements of
> > your democratic life).
> >
> > That doctrine blurs the issues for two reasons:
> >
> > - it has always been the case everywhere, in every areas. The same as
> > the  French, British, Russian, Chinese, Japanese political cultures
> > always did.  For centuries we manage and created organizations to
> > simplify our  International life. You are suspicious about the ITU, the
> > same as about  SDN. etc. This is not a big problem, however a big
> > issue. For the Internet  it translates into the 47 USC 230 (f)(1) which
> > puts my computer in  Versailles under the jurisdiction of the US
> > Congress. ICANN is to copper  ate to the law enforcement: since Sept/11
> > its priority switched from  international control enforcement to
> > homeland protection, ICANN only adapts  to the US society and Gov
> > priorities. Any national interest and any Gov  Agency would to the
> > same.
> >
> > - the second reason (now a priority) is that the Internet technology
> > does  not delivers. It is no good. It is an immense addition of smart
> > patches.  This has to be fixed, quick. The USA have the capacity to do
> > it alone and  because they have the motivation, they are going to make
> > it. The problem is  that (if they do it that way) it is going to be a
> > global failure and an  infinite source of major international
> > conflicts.
> >
> > Why? because Internet is by nature a confederate system and they think
> > homeland centralization. I fully understand their stress but it means
> > that  they engage into an e-colonization logic when we need a concerted
> > effort.  They plan an MS/SAIC White House controlled Cyberworld (and
> > therefore real  World) when we need an e-NATO. They are think they must
> > enforce (cf. ICANN)  when we need to concert. This is understandable
> > but selfish and as such it  is doom headed.
> >
> > They have the capacity to do what they intend, and therefore to induce
> > war  and competition when all of us want cooperation and peace. Some
> > will call  this capitalism, market filtering, world government. IMHO
> > this is petty  greed of some (who are often no more American than I
> > am), ignorance of  many, loyalty of the best but lack of vision and of
> > courage of a very few  who can correct that.
> >
> > At this stage we must show the USG that security can only come from
> > stability and stability from innovation common capacity. The important
> > issue is not the hardware/software (they name technology as in the 70s)
> > but  a global harmony including the main element in a network:
> > brainware. IETF,  IAB, BoD, GAC etc... must accept that Information
> > Society is what we called  "Informatique" in the 50s and that our
> > e-network is not about access, not  even about communications, but
> > about relations. That it needs a consistent  architecture (to permit
> > security) supporting subsidiarity (the key to  stability) in an open
> > manner (innovation/adaptation capacity).
> >
> > This means to take advantage from the various cultures we saw
> > developing  international datanetworks (Telephone, Fax, Arpa, Tymnet,
> > OSI), to confront  our own global cultural, political, commercial,
> > societal, mediatic  needs/views and to write (as everyone else) the
> > specifications.
> >
> > This means a global architecture review, not just to change a header in
> > IP.  Why is the IP addressing and the DNS so important? because they
> > are the  only common systems in a technology no one can really know the
> > number of  protocols being supported and the wasted bandwidth over
> > their design.
> >
> > You know it is very seldom that the markets adapt to what is in store
> > for  40 years.
> >
> > Then I suggest that you read the US Communications Code and FCC
> > analysis,  work on the notions of ancillary and added services, etc.
> > you will see that  Congress is no fool and pragmatic. There is IMHO no
> > need for lobbying or  courts, only for imaginative thinking, work,
> > tests, documentation to  convince  others to exercisse their own
> > imaginative thinking, work, test,  documentation at an upper layer and
> > so on.
> >
> > jfc
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Our duty today as Internet stakeholders understanding
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > because the Internet technology
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 18:49 02/11/02, Ray Fassett wrote:
> >
> >>I believe the announcement by the NTIA last September '01 to Congress
> >>that it will retain control of the root servers was a watershed event.
> >>I do believe the entire reform process was a reaction to this single
> >>event. Many in Congress do not understand all of the issues, maybe the
> >>right people in Congress were not "lobbied" properly or enough, or
> >>maybe it was a change in Administrations.  I don't know.  But I do not
> >>see how ICANN can move away from U.S jurisdiction without this piece to
> >>the puzzle (as was included in the White Paper).  Further, I do believe
> >>American citizens, as a whole, are a bit wiser about all this than
> >>circa 1990-1997.  I believe this particular window is closed for the
> >>indefinite future...I might be naive but is what I believe.  I believe
> >>much of ICANN's activities will be challenged under U.S. law.  It is
> >>just a matter of when and by whom, in my humble opinion.  Congress,
> >>U.S. judges, and their constituencies will catch up to the shell game.
> >>The NTIA announcement in Sept '01 shows this is happening.  It is
> >>inevitable and the American history of checks and balances has proven
> >>this more often than not....the key, as you infer below, was to get
> >>away from it.  This window, in my opinion, has closed.
> >>
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@fassett.org>
> >> > Subject: Re: ICANN patrimony - the mighty five:
> >> >>
> >> >> "However, once it gives the award to ICANN, ICANN is then operating
> >> >> under the policy umbrella of the US government and will be
> >> >> essentially free from legal liability."
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > 11. ...passing the ball from player to player, around the world,
> >> > just out of reach of governments that claim that such activity is
> >> > not legal there.
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
> >>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> >>Version: 6.0.408 / Virus Database: 230 - Release Date: 24/10/02
>
>
> --
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de