[discuss] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be fooled

David Cake dave at difference.com.au
Thu Mar 27 11:12:26 UTC 2014

I'll note that the author made some important updates, changing the slant of the article somewhat, but it is still quite a misrepresentation of ICANN etc.
The author plans to attend to the ICANN meeting in London, and learn more about how ICANN really operates.



On 19 Mar 2014, at 7:19 pm, McTim <mctimconsulting at gmail.com> wrote:

I agree with Greg, it is not very well researched.

For example, the sentence:

"The structure of ICANN is skewered to private interests, with
governments taking an advisory role."

Is untrue.  "There is a new sheriff in town" in recent years and it's
called the GAC.  If one is trying to launch a new gTLD, the silly
hoops that one has to go through and the limits on potential business
models all come from the GAC.

The GAC for instance pushed the idea that no new gTLD can have the
word "Olympic" or even "olympia"  at any level or ".uk"  at any level.
This is a radical paradigm shift in DNS administration, and while
this had substantial opposition, the biz folks and IP folks and the
Board of ICANN didn't have the temerity to stand up to such
foolishness.  As a result, there is no longer the ability to have a
hierarchical (by geography) namespace.

In other words, MG can't register the name
canadian.internetgovernance.guru if he wanted to or the Canadian Green
Party can't get ca.green if they had wanted to do so.

If you read the new Registry Agreement from ICANN, it's all about the
GAC getting their way.

In other words, the author is deeply wrong about many things on many
levels, she just doesn't appear to know it.



On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:01 PM, Shatan, Gregory S.
<GShatan at reedsmith.com> wrote:

Well, that's quite a collection of doctrinaire talking points and prejudices
- especially anti-US, anti-corporate prejudices.  The pro-[non-US]
government prejudices I find even odder.  I'm sure a G77 dominated internet
will be free, neutral and uphold privacy rights.  Or maybe it will get
annexed like Crimea.

I think the truest part of the article was "argues Julia Powles."

From: discuss-bounces at 1net.org [mailto:discuss-bounces at 1net.org] On Behalf
Of michael gurstein
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2014 7:32 PM
To: bestbits; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; discuss at 1net.org
Subject: [discuss] Wired: US pledges to loosen grip on net. Don't be fooled


* * *

This E-mail, along with any attachments, is considered confidential and may
well be legally privileged. If you have received it in error, you are on
notice of its status. Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message from your system. Please do not copy it or use it for
any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person. Thank you for
your cooperation.

* * *

To ensure compliance with Treasury Department regulations, we inform you
that, unless otherwise indicated in writing, any U.S. Federal tax advice
contained in this communication  (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (1) avoiding
penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or applicable state and local
provisions or (2) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any
tax-related matters addressed herein.

Disclaimer Version RS.US.20.10.00

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

discuss mailing list
discuss at 1net.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <http://1net-mail.1net.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20140327/b8c58b02/signature-0001.asc>

More information about the discuss mailing list