Re: [ga] Re: "political advantage"
we all share your concerns. But you/ICANN have to get real.
On 00:03 18/09/01, Mike Roberts said:
>Terrorists do vote; they infiltrate democratic institutions and processes
>while they are putting their attack together.
If terrorist overthrow us by vote, this will be known long before :-) as it
would mechnaically mean peace.
>As Americans go back to work, we are not going back to the same
>world. Our civil liberties are not what we casually thought they were a
The world is exactly the same. Your vision of the world has changed. Your
liberties should be the same. They only need to be protected better than
>Travelers this morning are having their possessions searched at airports
>all over the country down to the last nail file. In the next few days, the
>Congress is going to give new powers to law enforcement to invade our
>personal lives looking for the very few who choose to attack us.
The danger is not that your true friends knows everything about you. The
danger is that some pseudo friend sells your information on you to your
enemies. May be Safe Harbor will protect the Americanns after all?
>So if I sound angry and self-righteous about the all-too-frequent trash on
>this list, I am. This anonymous narcissistic garbage is not an exercise
>of freedom, it is an abuse of freedom.
This is a fuse. When there is no fuse ... I wander if you noticed the
personnal caliber and education of the people involved and if you tried to
figure out their motivations and state of mind. These were no dumb people
under influence or drug. Did you try to figure out what building such an
operation may represent? 25 people giving their life after years of
preparation, without any leak, without anyone quitting. And be sure there
is a second and a third wave under way, it would be military absurd
otherwise and these people are not absurd.
>Life at ICANN isn't going to be the same either. Given the military
>mindset and anti-terrorist measures in Washington and other capitals,
>there is going to be a much greater stress on operational oversight of the
>DNS, on stability and on synchronization with related Internet security
>steps. There is going to be much less interest in who is represented by
>whom on the Board.
The diversity of the BoD is supposed to be a way to help the ICANN doing a
better job. Would I be in military charge of the Internet my priority would
be to get a serious BoD and to keep operations simple, stable and open to
all: getting rid of the lawyers, implementing professional operational
staff, removing any limited number point of failures, getting maximum
people on it for cross-control and a larger more stable infrastructure I
I would realy be interested in seeing the NATO replacing the DoC and
building the net as an open, resilient and efficient tool for joint
development. I suspect NATODRP would be an easy and fair automated process.
>The GA, bastion of rugged individualism, has an opportunity to contribute
>to the solutions to these challenges. But if you're not interested in
>being part of common solutions and the compromises involved in them, and
>if throwing rocks at me for being the messenger of the new reality gives
>you a bigger thrill, go right ahead and lay a claim to irrelevance.
Mike, you are not the messenger of a new reality. You are the messenger of
a shaken appreciation of the reality. Many see the fact that your
appreciation is shaken as a plus, not against you, but because that
appreciation was in charge and therefore lead to the problem. You have to
accept that and keep dialoging because we have to find a common solution:
As you are probably no more than 50% wrong while the others are no more
than 50% right.
We all did our mistakes, please help each other now not doing worse while
at correcting them. What we need is experience and wiseness in probing
everything. Programmers know that well, it never hurt to debug.
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html