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

[Irwan Effendi]

I personally would really be disappointed if someday I have to see
governments controlling internet in the respective countries. I am a strong
supporter of the philosophy "Government should stick to politics and war,
let everything else be run by the people". Because we are discussing ICANN,
which physically resides in U.S. , I believe it is highly important to see
U.S. government own experience in the past, when they tried to handle
something beyond politics and war: "The bread factory case".
For those who has studied U.S. history will remember, and for those who
don't you can start reading the books, and see what happens when U.S.
government tried to make bread.

This is why we recognize the term "Heavy Foot of Government" and in economy
we joke that when doing politics, you need only mouths, no feet, and that's
why it works well.


Regards,

Irwan Effendi


----- Original Message -----
From: "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
To: "Fred Baker" <fred at cisco.com>; "Veni Markovski" <veni at veni.com>
Cc: "Patrick Vande Walle" <patrick at isoc.lu>; <memberpubpol at elists.isoc.org>;
<chapter-delegates at lists.isoc.org>
Sent: Monday, June 20, 2005 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: [MemberPubPol] [chapter-delegates] FYI - in the coming
discussion of the WGIG questionnaire


> At 08:46 20-06-05  -0700, Fred Baker wrote:
> >governments have access today. It's called GAC. What they don't have, and
> >what I understand them to be requesting, is control.
>
> That's why I wanted you to define "access".
> You see, on this mailing list there are many people, whose English is not
> native. While I appreciate the facts, and personally make every effort to
> make sure I try to be as descriptive as possible, there are always
errors -
> both on my side, and on many of the other people. Here's an exmaple - me
> and Alex Corentin exchanged a couple of e-mails yesterday, and we cleared
> out something, which was obviously a communications error.
> Amazingly, it's much more difficult to achieve such a "clearing" with some

> of the US-English speakers. Is it only because of language difference, or
> also because of cultural differences, I don't know.
>
> What I know, however, is that the access you talk about is not the access
> the GAC wants. It's not also the way Paul Twomey said it last week, see
> http://www.icann.org/announcements/ICANN-WGIG-statement-14jun05.pdf
>
> Insteaf of wasting both our time, and the time of the many readers of this
> list, why not start to talk about some concrete work with respect to the
> changes needed, instead of the "keeping the sacred cow untouched"?
>
> veni\
>
>
>