[governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... (from taxes?

[Riaz K Tayob]

Thanks for this Lee. It is good to have greater detail on this in such a 
sum up.

If this is the case, then Milton I suspect just because you shouted out 
that I am being "ideological", if the "facts" don't support your 
contention, then perhaps it is a case of the pot calling the kettle black?

Or is Lee wrong (bearing in mind that correlation ought not to be 
confused with causation)?


On 2012/12/06 01:36 AM, Lee W McKnight wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've been busy infiltrating Internet Rights and Principles into the 
> capitalist elite - CIOs of banks like UBS, Bank of America, 
> Commonwealth Bank of Australia...and hanging with China Mobile and 
> partners...so have missed all your fun on list of past few days. (more 
> on that, later in the week).
>
> And not to get in a debate on economics; but rather to elaborate on 
> the historical record, since certain transition points of past may be 
> instructive for the possible future.
>
> So to add to the discussion (?)
>
> Re: "Frankly", development of the TCP/IP protocols were supported by 
> military research contracts, which had no intention of supporting a 
> commercial industry. "The Internet" spread to the general population 
> and succeeded because of telecommunications liberalization and a free 
> market.
>
> The sequence was: DARPA->NSF->Department of Commerce, with
>
>                           IETF->ISOC->ICANN + RIRs created along the way
>
> paralleling the transition from a defense/computer science research 
> project to a commercial + multistakeholder environment.
>
> Telecoms liberalization helped speed the net along but the key steps 
> were taken before the '96 Telecom Act passed.
>
> So (more) telecoms liberalization helped spur the net bubble but did 
> not create the commercial Internet.
>
> To be very precise, it was the 'Gore Bill' or High Performance 
> Computing Act (of '89? or '90?) which was the key legislative 
> milestone in getting us to the commercial net of today, and that was 
> because of its explicit subsidy of expanding the net backbone in that 
> still pre-full commercialization stage.
>
> And then shutting off the subsidy, and nsfnet backbone, April 1, 1995. 
> (Someone had a sense of humor - don't know if it was Gore - unlikely 
> according to his reputation - or Bush or some Congressional Republican).
>
> A billion $ of US taxpayers $$ went a long way back then - 5 yrs @ 
> $200m/yr was what it took.
>
> By April 2nd '95 noone noticed the US government had exited the net 
> backbone 'market,' and the rest of the story is pretty well known.
>
> Some of you  can thank us US taxpayers now, or later, for - George 
> Bush the senior working the deal with Gore, back in the day, that got 
> us here.
>
> Of course, what this all has to with how the net of nets should be 
> coordinated in 2013 is - unclear.
>
> Other than to indicate reasonably orderly transitions from one - state 
> - to another have happened multiple times before, and certainly can in 
> future as well; even if the now global dimensions of the challenge, 
> and the market, make it a bit harder than US federal agencies 
> cooperating - though even that is not easy, as anyone ever dealing 
> with government agencies knows well.
>
> Lee
>
> PS: So yes, really, Gore should be credited for the commercial 
> Internet, not because he 'invented' it; but yeah for real he 
> personally was the one guy who deserves credit for getting it funded, 
> and launched. That's why it was called 'the Gore Bill.'
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org 
> [governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] on behalf of McTim 
> [dogwallah at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 05, 2012 4:22 PM
> *To:* governance at lists.igcaucus.org
> *Subject:* Re: [governance] Hmmmm... Google: "Internet Freedom!"... 
> (from taxes?
>
> Riaz,
>
> On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Riaz K Tayob <riaz.tayob at gmail.com 
> <mailto:riaz.tayob at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>     Now I have no truck disagreeing with Mueller on economics - these
>     approaches differ in method as well as context, so there is room
>     for disagreement. But on the politics of the matter (sorry Milton,
>     for some Institutionalists if it is relevant then it must be
>     included in the "calculation") Milton, with what I surmise from
>     his Institutionalism - not having read all his work, is no
>     different from American Exceptionalists on this list.
>
>
> Can you point to any of those?  I have challenged you on this before, 
> and from what I can see there are none (even amongst the Americans on 
> the list, some of whom are amongst the strongest voices for 
> "internationalising ICANN").
>
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A 
> route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20121206/781a3204/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t