thanks for the tip on that article although i have to admit that reading
it was rather depressing... the 'anti-cybersquatting' bill is an
obviously, almost unbelievably, terrible idea whose only real curiosity
lies in figuring out which big corporation pocket ( or pockets) sen.
spencer abraham sits in...(general mills? or general motors? or?)...
but i think we should resist the essentially false opposition that the
rest of the article tries to construct, with that (anti-cybersquatting)
on the one hand against the Bliley ICANN 'bashing' on the other, each as
'equally' negative instances of dreaded 'government regulation'...
that kind of reflexive either/or binarism of thought, while common among
idiotic and ideologically blighted politicians, is highly dangerous in
general... the question isn't whether or not to have 'regulation'...
since 'regulation' of some sort, as a necessary and unavoidable
formalization and structuring of 'mutually beneficial cooperative
agreement,' is required for any large-scale, technically complex social
enterprise... and especially for something like a --near real-time,
global, public communications inter-networking facility--
the important questions concern not just the (ostensible)
'institutional' relations between ICANN and elements of the us
government, but the total, real 'effective nature' and 'net effect' of
the entire, rapidly developing/evolving, regulatory framework for the
internet -- a framework which now prominently includes an expanding
feeding frenzy and mish-mash of national and international gov and
pseudo-gov political, legal, and police 'agencies'; mega corporate
interests and their IP droid lackeys; and at the atomized butt-end: the
marginalized individuals, users, and the used that IDNO would, in the
best case, try to give voice to...
and that 'total framework', in its forms and processes of regulation,
and in the results it produces, can and should be evaluated according to
how fair, broadly representative, disinterested/objective,
well-conceived, well-organized, well-constituted, open, little d
democratic, flexible, responsively dynamic, efficient etc. and etc. it
is...
and if you read the 'bliley questions', most of these are targeted,
legitimately i think, at bringing this kind of 'interrogation' to the
'constitution' of ICANN, and from the perspective of a well-founded
suspicion that far from being ' a model for web self-governance', as
Mike France would have it, ICANN is primarily and essentially serving
an alliance of 'special' and large corporate interests at the expense of
the 'global public interest' and in contravention of the admittedly
idealized but still important evaluative criteria mentioned above...
that the 'messenger' is an agency of the us gov is less important in
this case than that the 'message' is apt
just my 2 cents worth... but thanks again for keeping us posted
mark
-
This message was sent via the IDNO-DISCUSS mailing list. To unsubscribe,
send a message containing the line "unsubscribe idno-discuss" to
majordomo@idno.org. For more information, see http://www.idno.org/