[chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming discussion of the WGIG questionnaire

[Fred Baker]

On Jun 6, 2005, at 6:47 PM, Veni Markovski wrote:
> In fact, considering this issue, the only non-interested parties will 
> be the UN and the ITU.

An interesting viewpoint. ITU is on the verge of bankruptcy, or so I'm 
told, and has to become a power in the Internet to maintain its own 
solvency. However, it has not demonstrated competence on the topic, and 
is as a result not trusted by the technical community. If they do gain 
control of the DNS root, sudenly they have what amounts to a license to 
print money.

ITU is not "interested" in a financial sense?

The UN may not be "interested" financially, but it certainly is 
"interested" from a power perspective.

>>  answer was "yes" was very symptomatic of that. That discussion is in 
>> fact where the term "internet governance" originated, with three
>
> Correct me, if I am wrong, but I've seen this term in ISOC's documents 
> long before it became popular within the WSIS environment, and way 
> before the WGIG was formed.

Oh, please, WSIS/WGIG are new kids on the block. When I came onto the 
IAB, the first email I received from off-list was from Karl Denninger, 
who wanted my FAX number so he could serve lawsuits on me over matters 
of "internet governance", which in 1996 meant that Jon Postel, the 
IANA, and the IAB stood between him and his own private TLD, which he 
viewed as a license to print money. The term Internet Governance" has 
been around for a truly long time, and has continually had random 
meanings attached to it since the day it was coined.