Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: markusbaccus
Date/Time: Tue, October 17, 2000 at 9:51 PM GMT
Browser: Microsoft Internet Explorer V5.01 using Windows 95
Score: 5
Subject: Finally, a defense of capitalism.

Message: 		 

 
                         First off, I am a .web registrant of a few domains.  If you care to see what my interests are from my previous posts, (I previously wrote as publius) you will notice that they are mainly concerned with the first amendment implications of ICANN's proposals, and not io design's merits as a .web registrar.  Nevertheless, I am glad that someone (jtrade) has finally called these whiny socialists who claim piety out onto the floor.

{rant}
J'Accuse!!!
As both a lawyer and a programmer, I am amazed at how amatuerish ICANN's proposals are. 

Premises:
1. Academics who can't get a job in the real world should not be allowed to practice their marxist leanings here.  (i.e. the anger directed against, [shield your children's eyes] --"speculation!" & "profiteering!" by that spawn of satanic capitalism, io design.) 

2. Airhead tech wannabe's who read Wired magazine for tips on where the world is going but can't program their VCR should not determine tech policy.

3. Geeks who can't write a sentence or ask a girl out for a date shouldn't be allowed to handle a tv remote, let alone write by-laws. 

My Modest Proposal:
Get the amateurs out.  Replace them with pairs of constitutional scholars and civil libertarian technologists who won't talk about balancing rights, respecting the soveriegnty of dictators, giving an equal voice to the five internet users of Africa, or any of this other socialist nonsense learned from the Gene Rodenberry school of wishful thinking. 
{flamebait}
Have a problem with the First Amendment?  Fuck you.  Don't like the influence of western culture on yours?  Then stop using a western invention and get back to making mud in the esteemed traditions of your honorable ancestors.
{/flamebait}
{/rant}

Examples of ICANN Stupidity in Action: 
[You to, can protect yourself, citizen,
if you know what to look for.]

Exhibit 1:
".tv"
{sarcasm}
-oh how useful.  A TLD just for and about another medium.  How about ".pamphleteer", ".printingpress", or ".megamediaconglomerate".  How about ".pandertocluelesssuitswithmoney"? 
And thank G-d they ignored all of those useless TLD's which are so topical, like ".info", in order to make room for one like ".world", which is hardly redundant for an international communications medium.  That way, if we ever start a mining colony on the moon, and we can create a ".moon" TLD.
{/sarcasm}

Exhibit 2:
The geography-based, unicameral at-large membership initiative.

Didn't these idiots ever take American/English history in high school?  Haven't they ever heard of the "Great Compromise", or a bi-cameral legistlature?  Here's a hint: one legistlative house to represent regional interests, (such as the Senate or House of Lords) and an equally powerful house based upon population (such as the House of Representatives or the House of Commons).  Gee, it's such a tough issue balancing population vs. regional concerns, I'm sure this has never come up before.  Amatuers!  - I guess it's easier to ask "What would Gene Rodenberry do?".

As you can probably gather, I am appalled by the politically correct, we are the world agenda of ICANN.  Excuse me, why does Africa and Latin America have the same voting power as North America when the number of internet users in the latter outnumbers the former by 1000 to 1?  Why should any region which can be readily hijacked by a dictator (e.g. China, Africa, Mexico, etc.) have an equal say in the final and most robust domain of free expression?

Exhibit 3:
ICANN's roots.

I think it is time to call ICANN what it is: a pathetic collection of Academics who missed out on the Internet boom, friends of NSI, and a bunch of self-proclaimed digerati who got theirs and don't seem to pressed about ours.  (Ahem- Ms. Dyson).  It is the creature of beauracratic appointment of a Clinton agency, which itself has an egregious record on free expression on the Internet.  e.g: The telephony wiretap bill of 1993.  The omnibus crime fighting/anti-terrorist bill of 1996.  The 150 billion dollar giveaway of the airwaves as a rider to the telecommunications act of 1996.  The rigorous defense of unconstitutional Export restrictions upon encryption in the guise of defending national security while simultaneously running Echelon from 1993-Present.  The DOJ's support for the Carnivore system.  The support for WIPO's trademark as uber-IP scheme, and most recently, the DCMA.

Screw these people.  They don't represent me, and they certainly don't represent freedom for the internet.
     
     
     
 

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy