In article , PAT writes:
I do not understand why the United States Government remains under the illusion that it has any such thing.
I also do not understand why PAT remains under the illusion that ICANN has anything whatsoever to do with any of these things. Is NANPA responsible for the sleazy MCI marketing campaigns of yesteryear?
-- Garrett A. Wollman | As the Constitution endures, persons in every firstname.lastname@example.org | generation can invoke its principles in their own Opinions not those | search for greater freedom. of MIT or CSAIL. | - A. Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: I will try to explain this once again. To say "United States has control of the internet" is a short way of making a longer statement, to wit: "The internet is controlled to a large extent by the 'root servers'; the computers which direct the requests for connections to one place or another. Since the 'root servers' are by and large in the United States, or under the supervision of the United States, therefore, for all intents and purposes the internet is controlled by the United States." Only instead of making that longer statement, we often times just abbreviate it by saying, "United States has control of the internet". Yes, there are exceptions to that, but they are inconsequential.
When we say "ICANN runs the internet" that also is a short way of telling a longer story, to wit: "Every person or company or organization in the United States who wishes to have an internet address in one of the traditional suffixes for addresses such as '.com', '.org', '.net' or others is required to deal not only with an ISP or a registrar to obtain the desired address (that is, if they wish to have recognition of that address and some way for others to see their pages or reach them by email), but they must also agree in writing to a very one-sided 'contract' presented to them by ICANN and make an annual extortion payment required by ICANN which goes to fund the overseas trips and other friviolities in which ICANN engages itself. If you fail to sign the required one-sided contract and/or fail to make your annual extortion payments then you do _NOT_ get your domain name (in effect a domain name allows for two way conversation with the outside world.) This contract you are required by ICANN to sign tells about all of ICANN's rights; how _they_ if they choose to do so can revoke your right to use the name, and the rules _you_ have to follow. Of course it has nothing to say about you having any rights such as the right to be free of others sending spam or scam or viruses or the right to protect your domain name except through some sort of feeble arbitration which they (ICANN) control. Basically, when you deal -- as you must! -- with ICANN in order to be on the net, you do it their way or you don't do it at all. And no, NANPA is or was not responsible for the sleaze which oozes out from MCI each day, since NANPA never required any contracts pertaining to behavior of its users the way ICANN does. ICANN _could_ have written contracts for users with some protections for users built in if they had wanted to, but Vint Cerf did not and does not want that to happen. So when we make the statement "ICANN controls Internet", that is a short form of the longer proceeding paragraph. If NANPA were to require contracts from users -- telco or otherwise -- which outlined standards of behavior required (**as ICANN could do if they were anything other than a tool of big business**) then in that case, yes, NANPA would have some responsibilty for MCI's sleazy activities.
So before you take umbrage or exception to the statements "United States controls Internet" or "Internet is controlled by ICANN" go back and fill in the blanks _entirely_ with the realities of life. PAT]