I think the real problem is that this *isn't* genuine privatization. Real privatization includes the notion of competition. ICANN is a U.S. government-sponsored Internet monopoly and thus competition is anathema to it... Real global competition can only be entrusted to a global entity. The state of California does not constitute a global entity. Global [name|proto|addr]spaces should be managed by global entities. Cheers, -s On Fri, 2003-01-10 at 11:48, Jkhan wrote: > Re: http://www.icann.org/general/status-report-08jan03.htm#B > > .... Importantly, the MOU reflects the continuing policy goal of the DOC > to ***"privatiz[e] the technical management of the DNS in a manner that > promotes stability and security, competition, coordination, and > representation." *** ... > > *privatiz[e]* > > **privatiz[e]** > > ***privatiz[e]*** > > " Within the faith of the Reaganuats and Thatcherites (Bush & Blair), > China is now in the cross-hairs of the World Bank, the IMF, the Asian > Development Bank and the International Bank for Settlements. It won't > be long now Billion Dollar Loans and Direct Foreign Investments will be > defaulted on, due to over-stocked inventories, excess production > capacity, and a fixed currency rate which will undermined the value of > the Yuan (de-valueuation ↓), deepening their ability to get right-side > up. Thereafter, you know the drill by now: fire-sale privatizations, > flexible labor markets (i.e. union demolition) and deficit reduction > through savage cuts in government services and social security. > > You see, will give them IPv6, ...but we'll get it all back! Its called > Indian-Giving. > > God Bless the United States >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part