TELECOM Digest Editor noted in response to a message:
> [*TELECOM Digest Editor's Note*: Well, to me it is sort of a toss-up.
> Which to you is more opressive? Tons of spam and scam and phishing
> each day via a coordinator (ICANN) who essentially turns a blind eye
> to the mess that the internet has become in the past decade, or some
> _other_ coordinator who *might or might not* attempt to exercise some
> censorship on a few web sites here and there. Might or might not ...
> but would most assuredly instruct registrars and ISPs under them to
> clamp down HARD on spammers, etc. I always laugh when I hear people
> complain that some other administrator would (gasp!) probably censor
> users and sites, all the while going ho-hum and shrugging their
> shoulders while scammers, scammers and phishermen have almost shut us
> down now, so fearful are many users to sign their real email addresses
> or participate in any real, meaningful way. I mean, even if it is true
> that ICANN is sort of backed into a corner with the contracts they
> have out on the net now, even asking them to give favorable
> consideration to eventually phase out their existing contracts in
> favor of differnet ones just gets a blank stare in return. Some of us
> would just as soon take our chances with someone else running things.
> That is why I feel the arguments about how 'some other organization in
> charge might be censors, etc' are so bogus. PAT]
I'll ignore the ignorance behind what you're suggesting is the cause
of spam, and just include a quote that is applicable to you
personally:
Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security
deserve neither security nor liberty.
- Benjamin Franklin
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Like yourself, I will also excuse your
ignorance. Your old, tired, worn out quote from Benjamin Franklin is
very good, but not really applicable in this instance. It presumes (as
may have been true in BF's lifetime), that America is _absolutely free
and full of liberty and security_ and that other places are not, ergo,
if we don't do it "the American way" we will automatically lose at
least some of our security and some of our liberty, and by extension,
deserve to have neither. Aside from the fact that I am not sure at all
the citizens of England, Australia, Switzerland, Canada, and many
other countries would agree with your claims that people making my
suggestions about 'internet governance' are _ignorant_ ,it is also
true, I hope you would agree, that the good old US of A. is hardly the
place it was when Ben Franklin penned his thoughts. While it is also
true that USA does not directly, willfully or purposely, limit our
thoughts and speech (not that often, anyway, only when it suits their
purpose and political objectives), a number of former netizens have
bailed out over the years -- in effect been censored -- because of the
abundance of crime on the net. They won't speak up, at least in any
effective way by signing their names/email addresses since they do not
want to be victimized by spammers, scammers, etc.
There are many users who would qualify for Ben Franklin's scorn by
their reliance upon _filtering techniques_; they'd rather tolerate
losing a few valid pieces of email rather than risk being terrorized
by a few other email 'writers', i.e. phishermen sticking their noses
into places where they do not belong, crackers who rape databases, and
would-be 'businesmen' who spam the hell out of them every day. Aside
from the fact that email filtering is by and large quite ineffectual
in the long run, let's look at the present 'internet governance' who
makes such tactics necessary: You would probably blame the spammers,
the scammers, etc for 'making it necessary'. They no more make it
necessary than the animal welfare shelters make it necessary to
neuter dogs and cats. The animal's own nature and instincts make those
actions required. Ditto spammers, scammers, and phishermen. It is
their nature to behave as they do, they know no better. Groups such
as ICANN (to make an illustration) refuse to do a thorough abatement
of the insects plaguing us; I suggest that other 'governors' might
do better. If these other governors turn out to be as rotten and
ineffecient as ICANN has been, then we can replace them also, until
we find a governor we do like.
You sir, seem to be making the arrogant assumption that the governor
we presently have is the only one who won't harm us by his actions.
(And puh-leeze, no more wimpering about how ICANN is 'only involved
with technical standards and has no control otherwise'; that has been
discredited now so often it is no longer funny at all, if it ever
was.) One's actions can be by deliberate commission, as I suspect
you agree would be the case with certain countries in Asia or the
middle east. One's actions can also be by neglect. ICANN, by its
neglect has done as much to 'censor' internet as many countries in
Asia could do it they tried. So I will be happy and blissful in my
ignorance and you can be happy and blissful in your arrogance. There
are no guarentees of liberty and freedom either way we go, so I will
go one direction while you toss about Franklin's quoto to your
heart's desire. PAT]
C.W. (temp18@thewolfden.org)