[LINK] Fwd: ICANN Alert
Mon, 16 Oct 2000 10:33:10 +1000
At 23:36 15/10/00 +1100, Bruce Arnold wrote:
>Adam - your post (below) is the funniest I've read for months. When do the
>black helicopters arrive?
<smile> Well I can't take the Credit! I didn't write it! But admittedly
it's a fairly accurate review of the events.
The ICANN board in it's present form was suppose to have been replaced in
early 1999. ICANN was created on Friday September 25, 1998. Four days
after my bub was kidnapped in that raid on my home.
I was a very strong and influential opposer of the creation of ICANN as
were several others, of which two are now dead and one is still
missing. All these weird incidents happening to people all round the world
between 18 September and 24 September 1998. Total coincidence of course.
The interim ICANN board was given the power to create a scheme by where
Internet subscribers globally would be able to vote for a replacement of
the First Official Board of Directors. Half the interim board would be
replaced in that election six months after creation.
No other powers were bestowed upon ICANN.
That Interim Board in it's first 6 months created an accreditation scheme
and accredited a dozen new Registrars. Strangely all those registrars were
very much in favour of this process commencing earlier than was sanctioned.
After the first year, still no election was held to replace half the first
board. IN fact it's only been since March this year that the process to
elect the FIRST official board has commenced. TWO whole years down the track.
In the mean time hundreds of other Registrars have been accredited.
The whole process is not without it's problems. IN fact auDA is following
in the footsteps and design of ICANN almost to the letter. They are
probably psychologically blind to this fact.
ADNA was in fact a duplicate creation of the predecessor to ICANN, the IAHC
(what better become known as the Alphabet Soup with it's sub
organisation: iPOC, IPAB, IAHC, IgTLD, CORE, and many more.)
Like the IHAC, ADNA fell flat on it's face too.
ICANN after almost six months of operation (February 1999) released a press
release asking the Internet Community help save it by sending donations of
money to the organisation. Coincidentally again this was two days before
the file on my bubs kidnapping was closed with a NO FURTHER ACTION letter
from the Minister to me.
A few large Corporations made loans to ICANN. Wasn't that kind. I won't
provide details unless people wish to avoid them.
>A closer reading of Steven Hill's article suggests that he's basing his
>polemic on a single Canadian study that found ICANN gets less media
>coverage than Tom Cruise, with or without the famous lamb roast and Ms
ICANN itself doesn't get a lot of media coverage. Thank goodness
too. It's a propoganda machine, not unlike Hitlers Propoganda machine,
it's designed to make everyone feel it's a necessity and needs to be in
existence and that the Internet needs a Government.
If you research a little you'll find Paul Twomey was in fact a major part
of ICANN. Strange isn't it.
An Australian said at the IPWF in Singapore in August 1998 during the
summation of the conference (and I have this on Video - of course) "I can
see we aren't going to be able to control this from here, so I'll be taking
back to my country this fact and we'll have to come up with other ways."
Don't let the Black Helicopters scare you! They don't really exist -
except in the movies! Right?
BTW you know Paranoia can only exists if there is in fact a fact that the
event might happen?
>I doubt that the mass media are ever going to give an exhaustive
>account, day by day, of ICANN or WIPO or the ITU or WTO or other bodies
>that affect "most Internet users".
I totally agree. ICANN does get a few favorable articles into the Internet
Media from time to time, but mostly smoke screen hogwash presented by a
reporter who is too naive to know better.
>Tom & Nicole also get more attention than the Humane Genome Project,
>starvation in Africa, major unpleasantness in the former Soviet republics,
>the hole in the ozone layer, Telstra, the ongoing subsidence of Venice,
>fun things to do with a parlt telecard ..... most anything.
This may be true, but lets try and make sure ICANN doesn't get more
coverage. It's worse than a field of Dandy lions or Bizzy Lizzy!
>Over the past six months ICANN's scored at least one item per week in the
>New York Times.
That's too much! If you tell people often enough that your Gods Saviour,
they eventually start to believe you.
That's how Religion works.
>It gets coverage in the Sydney Morning Herald, the Canberra
>Times and the Australian Financial Review.
NOIE are probably somewhat responsible for that.
>- my dog forbids me to read them). It's appeared in the Economist - at
>least once a month for the past year - and the Industry Standard, Business
>2.0, WIRED magazine, Wired News..... It's had extensive coverage in more
>specialist publications on and offline.
Again, way too much.
I'd rather see that hot body of Nicoles in the papers!
>ISOC-AU's Tony Hill has done a good job encouraging people to vote in the
>ICANN election ..... a practical way of influencing its operation
I agree strongly with this. I'll be voting as will everyone else directly
involved with me. But I doubt the outcome will be ethical or sensible.
I must also remind too that the ICANN voting systems whilst being tested
was quickly hacked and cracked. There is a lot of debate about the ethics
of the system and it's ability to actually work properly.
Be warned too - ICANN could quickly become the worlds first WORLD
GOVERNMENT. Something that we (people on my side of the fence) have been
saying for a long time now. Since 1996 in fact.
ICANN is out for power one way or another. And people are blindly going to
give it. There have already been investigations into the operation of
ICANN by various US Government Agencies. I can't say much more at the
>There are numerous bodies closely and critically examining its activities,
>for example www.icannwatch.org and the Internet Democracy Project
>(established by EPIC, the ACLU and CPSR). There have been international
>conferences just to keep track of what the very sinister ICANNoids have
>been up to. It's hardly invisible.
Maybe not invisible to those who know what it's about. But seriously
almost everyone I talk to at the "User" level or even in Corporate
Australia have no idea about it. A lot of ISPs I talk to have never heard
Even a couple of CEO's of very large ISP's hadn't heard of it till I wrote
down the URL some weeks ago in a meeting.
>Hype about dark forces operating in secret to tame the Web is just silly,
>mate. No wonder people prefer to read about the lamb roast
It's not. Not really. But it will make a hell of a good Internet movie -
if ICANN doesn't pass a law preventing the movies creation!
Now, to that Lamb Roast!