[chapter-delegates] An analysis - INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT: "What to Do About ICANN"

[Irwan Effendi]

No, I am not joking.
Being neutral is not the same as being a bystander.
IMHO, being neutral is being the guardian of balance, it means that we will
be looking to upset some people, but not to the point of making enemies, and
we will also be looking to make some people happy, but not to the point of
becoming their savior.

For example, your move against Microsoft. Personally, I don't care much
about them, but I do know that the move does not exactly count as balance
either. A more balanced action is to recommend open source solution without
filing a court case, that will be considered as neutral position.

Compromise sir. That is the only way to keep everyone in the boat without
sinking it.

Regards,

Irwan Effendi

----- Original Message -----
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
To: <chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 07, 2005 12:13 AM
Subject: Re: [chapter-delegates] An analysis - INTERNET GOVERNANCE PROJECT:
"What to Do About ICANN"


> At 00:06 07-04-05  +0700, Irwan Effendi wrote:
>
> >I agree that ICANN does not care much about what happens in developing
> >countries, which can be seen from uniform fee schedule.
>
> Well, this is changing in many ways - I can tell as a witness.
>
> >However, I am against giving power to governments of each nation to
control
> >internet.
>
> Agree.
>
> >IMHO, ISOC should interfere and attempt to keep the internet as
> >free as possible from government intervention, even U.S. government
>
> You are joking, right? ISOC will not take an active position, as it was
> repeatedly said on many many occasions. It wants to be neutral, whatever
> that is.
>
> v.
>
>
>