[discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: your thoughts?

Michel S. Gauthier mg at telepresse.com
Fri Jun 20 21:53:12 UTC 2014

At 22:58 20/06/2014, Shatan, Gregory S. wrote:
>I take the subway -- costs about $120.00/month.  No free ride 
>here.  As for what I pay to live -- rent, food, clothing, medical 
>insurance, etc. -- it adds up.  As for free speech and the air I 
>breathe (far cleaner than it was 20 years ago, for regulatory and 
>technological reasons), I pay a lot in city, state and federal 
>taxes.  If I were somewhere else, maybe I wouldn't be paying those 
>taxes, but I might not have free speech or reasonably clean air.
>Maybe there is a model where end-users pays nothing for internet 
>access (and nothing for a device with which to access it?).  I 
>haven't heard anything coherent about what that model might be. All 
>we've heard is what it isn't.  When the idea was floated that it 
>would be paid for by the government (i.e., by taxes on the 
>end-users), we were told that wasn't the idea.  I'm still waiting 
>for an explanation of "free" internet.  Until I hear otherwise, I 
>will put "free" internet in a class with perpetual motion machines and alchemy.
>The last sentence is just a string of falsehoods and invective -- no 
>need to reply to that.

I am sorry that you understood it that way.

1. First, the model you describe is a model for the rich ($ 
120.00/month to get a by-pass and not walking or paying your car on a 
free road). Two, I just talked of life itself which is a human right.

You perfectly know that the question is between

on the offer side:
- a universal service for all (US consensus until 1978),
- competition since 1978 and
- innovation and trust now ,

on the demand side:
- equal for all .

2. The NTIA->ICANN transfer is a transfer of the same internet from 
politicians (US Executive) to Lawyers (US Legislative). This does not 
interest people who are interested in a ***better*** internet. And a 
better internet is an US free internet. Not because they want to get 
rid of the US, but because they want to get rid of the US 
lawyer+money culture. A free internet has no contract, no special 
regulation. No artificial barriers to innovation, no artificial 
negotiable barriers to innovation.

Sorry, since you are a lawyer, but people are not interested in all 
what is discussed in here. They just want to get it cared by the 
taxes they pay for it. When they say they want it for free, it only 
means that they feel they pay twice.

Just explaining.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Michel S. Gauthier [mailto:mg at telepresse.com]
>Sent: Friday, June 20, 2014 4:44 PM
>To: Shatan, Gregory S.; 'Andrew Sullivan'; discuss at 1net.org
>Subject: Re: [discuss] shifts in IANA/accountability discussion: 
>your thoughts?
>what do you really talk about? Can you please tell us how many 
>turnpikes you pay from home to office?. How much do you pay for free 
>speech? How much do you pay for the air you breadth? How much do you 
>pay to live?
>The internet access is to be accepted as a human right. Some time 
>ago Vint Cerf published an RFC "The internet is for everyone" - he 
>did not say "for everyone who pays". More simply Gene Gaines says 
>"the internet is everyone".
>How many years do you think "your" internet for the rich complicate 
>model, hijacked by ICANN, and money making lawyers employers, will 
>survive in front of the people's technically meshed digitalities?

More information about the discuss mailing list