Message-ID: <19990125184612.AAA21666@LOCALNAME> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 14:46:07 -0400 From: Kerry Miller <mailto:kerryo@NS.SYMPATICO.CA> Subject: Re: Underestimating Wired Africa To: mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU
Bob Myers wrote:
{ > and if the higher rates paid in (Europe and) Africa keep the
{ > 'undesirable' uses of the WWW to a minimum, it may look like a solution
{ > in the US, too - i.e. to the new ICANN corporation, forcing communal
{ > acquainance and coopperation down our individualistic throats ;-)
{
{ ... what is it that ICANN has done, planned or proposed
{ that leads you to believe ICANN is going to force common use of InterNet
{ access points or accounts?
{
Your hair-trigger reflexes have (once again) misread the text.
(Admittedly, I could have used a second dash instead of a comma, but the
only 'force' we need to be concerned with is economic force.) The
question is, if higher costs of access appear to lead to a 'cleaner'
Internet, is it hard to imagine that those trying to make money will
justify doing so in just this manner? The rich get info-rich, and the
poor pool resources.
As for ICANN -- a (non-profit) corporate body designated to 'govern' the
net, operating with major input from other (for-profit) corporate
'stakeholders,' and without serious governmental oversight -- it is in a
very weak position to counteract any such tendency, even if 'at large'
members (whatever that category turns out to mean) try to argue that it
should.
In fact, Wendy Seltzer (Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard)
has written (1/19/99):
"ICANN is not a governance institution,
but a narrowly focused technical body charged
with certain policymaking and coordination tasks. This model is premised
on the view that if ICANN is invested with a worldwide democratic
electorate, it will be treated by realspace governments and others as a
legitimately elected government of cyberspace."
That is, unless the public, including, imo, *both wired and unwired folk,
gets it together, 'technical' (for which we may read 'commercial') policy
will completely override any possible *social policy. All such
'legitimate' concerns of cyberspace users will be handed back to national
legal venues -- where you can sue ATT et al if you dont like it.
There is no reason *not* to conceive of, and implement, a 'worldwide
democratic electorate,' but it wont happen by itself -- nor with any
mandate from ICANN policy, which is _presently_ being formulated to
control the medium that makes such an idea possible.
But hey, theres no money in it.
kerry