<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000099">
<br>
<br>
McTim wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Tue, Apr 6, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Parminder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net"><parminder@itforchange.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
Apart from the many other absurdities implied, you mentioned in your
email<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">to Milton that allocation of domain name, IP addresses etc is a 'natural
monopoly' function. Dont you see that civil society is definitionally a
social sub-system denoting pluralism, non-rivalrous-ness, non-monopoly
etc.... How could an organisation do a 'natural monopoly' function and be
civil society?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
the two are not at all mutually exclusive.
</pre>
</blockquote>
They are mutually exclusive. That the point i am making. An entity
cannot be a civil society entity if it undertakes a monopolistic and
rivalrous function. If IT for Change is civil society body, then it is
open for anyone else to do whatever we do. We have no special and
exclusive right over whatever we may purport to do . That is a civil
society organisation.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:j2of65fb55e1004060701pe43bd813m4c326457e985309a@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">
Do you deny that the root of Internet numbering resources are a
natural monopoly? How about names? If it wasn't then I could have
itforchange.net, and there would be chaos in terms of who is who.
</pre>
</blockquote>
I thought it was obvious that I was not denying numbering resources are
a natural monopoly. In fact, on the precise logic that they are not, I
argued that ICANN cannot be called a civil society body.<br>
<br>
Parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>