🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 10 Apr 1998, Tony Rutkowski wrote:

> Admittedly it was a well intentioned idea at the time.
> It probably resonated with most of us.  What was lacking
> was a lawful transition process - which is exactly what
> is now occurring with the NPRM.

Baloney! How can this be a lawful process when the US government is
attempting to hijack our Internet. This is an organization in which most
of us have no say whatsoever, no representation at all. This is not the
United States of America Internet, it is the *GLOBAL* Internet and I, for
one, do not want any part of this so-called lawful process.

The Internet has developed just fine in a state of lawless anarchy and I
see no good reason to substantially change that. The Internet may be
lawless but it is not cruel, it is not unfair, it is not violent. There is
no need for lawmakers to impose themselves upon the Internet. The problems
of the Internet can be resolved and *ARE* being resolved by Internet users
themselves. No big-footed clumsy outsiders are needed, thank you!

If there was to be a truly "lawful" process for transitioning the Internet
to a more formal management structure, you can bet that it would not be
led by or initiated by governments. It would be created extra-nationally
by Internet users themselves similar to the way that the British colonists
in America created their own government structures that met their needs
and their temperaments. 

Chances are that any such Internet governance structure would have little
room for bureacrats and politicians so I understand why people like that
are trumpeting the Magaziner Green Paper, but no amount of such trumpeting
will make it right.

P.S. This is one of the better analyses that I have seen from Gordon and I
hope he continues to beat at this horse because it ain't dead yet.

--
Michael Dillon                   -               Internet & ISP Consulting
http://www.memra.com             -               E-mail: michael@memra.com