Re: Applications and Public Trust (was Re: Expansion of the IAHC)

[tor@wtv.net (Bob Allisat)]

                 The following should be burned
                 onto the screens of all of the
                 self-declared Internet authorities
                 and imprinted as the signature to
                 all of their pompous pronouncements.


Vince Wolodkin wrote:
>If these RFCs are to be rules/regulations of the game then they cannot
>be open to interpretation.  Their must be a deciding body who rules on
>interpretations and then rewrites as necessary.  This is a totally
>non-existent function in the internet power structure.
>
>ISOC et al are so miserably unprepared and ill-qualified to handle the
>global policy issues on the horizon that I find myself stuttering with
>disbelief.  I am not questioning any technical capabilities.
>
>ISOC, with its puny budget, sub-fractional support of the internet
>community(how many internet users(%-wise) are ISOC members?), and
>non-existent support from any recognized government has absolutely no
>authority.  Oh, you can bandy about the "consensus" word all you want,
>but its a load of *&^%.  How can you reach consensus with support from
>less than 1%(far less) of your claimed constituents.
>
>You obviously can do what you will, the root-server operators bow to
>IANA and all the good old boys recognize only each other, so for awhile
>you can decide.  The first time anyone with real authority takes issue
>with ISOC, you are history, because you have no authority.
>
>It has been stated that no-one wants a treaty organization to handle
>international internet issues.  Well, I do.  None of the good ole boys
>want one, they lose a lot of power that way.
>
>The only difference between ISOC and AlterNIC is that ISOC was started
>by good ole boys, and therefore was accepted.