On Mon, 8 Jun 1998, Oscar A. Robles Garay wrote:
> Then, the USG under the US law will be watching the operations...
>
> Is it already decided, or there is something to decide ?
i have no problem having niana be based in US if other parts of the earth
and internet stakeholders are represented on it
USA have a great contribution for the internet and in this way it should
be honored by having the dns management headquortered in US
but i am shure that mr.postel and other kay people are the first one who
looks for a balanced geographical structure for the global internet
management-you can not manage the internet only from one point
as like there is no "one single network" building up the "internet"
USG hase done a really great thing by steping out of the internet
"management" imagine would some other country do the same if it hase the
same amount of contribution to the internet ?
many thanks for that
i think this was the deal..
we will step out but let the new iana be headquortered in US so that we
can have some kind of positive influance on it if it turns
the wrong way :-)
nothing wrong so far !:-)
thanks
sascha
ps.but for the future of the global internet self/common governance some
other new mechanisms are requayered
the headquorters of the future would be more virtual than geographical
as cyberspace becomms "more importand" than geographical-space
we have to build a virtual earth with headquorter in cyberspace
to wich we all have the same "distance"-namely no distance at all!
just a mouse klick :-)
this mean than organisations and individuums have to transfer their
activities more and more into the cyberspace and les in
personal offline relations offices cities states planets..:-)