Re: [ga] RIPE NCC response to the Lynn Roadmap
Joop Teernstra wrote:
At 23:15 2/03/02 -0800, William S. Lovell wrote:
>In short, where are the clothes of the ICANN empire? And why is it
>(It indeed needs to be replaced by something, and preferably an entity
>through international agreement such as the WTO, WIPO, etc., or perhaps
>a public/private entity involving both governments and trade groups,
>please don't call it a "global ICANN" -- we've seen enough of that.)
In such a replacement scenario (WIPO, ITU, govt/"trade groups") you
have *any* say at all in the coming regulational frenzy.
Neither will ccTLD's.
Au contraire. I see the ccTLDs, maybe ISOC, maybe icannatlarge
whatever it ends up being) as the driving force(s) that would set it
are international standards-setting organizations, and other organizations
dealing with matters similarly having a global scale, all over the
there is no reason why one could not be established to place the Internet
under some kind of agreed-upon global governance, rather than what
have at present, which is the imperial ICANN presuming to "run the
and then trying to cram its self-serving rules down the throats of
else. The founders of any such group will, almost by definition, have
the "say" on what then evolves.
In the writing of the icannatlarge Charter, I would assume that something
about the global governance of the Internet would be said -- otherwise,
why have a icannatlarge? -- and I would hope to see some really affirmative
and constructive goals along this line given prominence in that Charter.