Craig and all,

Craig Simon wrote:

> Jim Dixon wrote:
> > Furthermore, the United States were formed from colonies which were
> > relatively homogeneous in social and political terms ...
>
> Few things incite political and social coordination as successfully as having
> a common adversary. Do the Internet "stakeholders" have that?  Not on the DNS
> issue.

  No common adversary?  Really?  And pray tell, how do you surmise this idea?
The common adversary, are those that would seek to control the DNS and the
IP address space.  Those like the IAHC/MoUvment supporters, Craig.  Those
like NSI, Craig.  Those like the IANA, Craig.  These are the the Axis forces, or
common adversary.

  You are lack of grasp of that astounds us!

>
>
> As a general rule, the more severe and immediate the perceived threat, the
> more quickly "process" questions seem to get settled among allies.

  This may or may not always be the case.  History has shown us that.  Our own
American history in its formation, the Revolutionary war, took many years
to conclude.  And even than we had to fight for our existence again in 1812.
  It is both appropriate and ironic that on the eve or our Independence we again
as Internet citizens of the globe face possibly even a greater battle or teat
of our resolve.  That of a free and open Internet for all the worlds people
to communicate, share, and build upon to a greater tomorrow.  Our adversary's)
are those that would seek to control the very hart or the Internet, those "Axis"
forces seek not to share, but to manage and control to the point of advantaging
a smaller and smaller number of Internet users for their own purposes.

>
>
> The American founding "fathers" had prevailed together in a war against the
> British, a nation-building experience that augmented all the elements of
> shared culture that Jim Dixon just recounted. Still, the unresolved tensions
> between geographic regions eventually exploded into the Civil War.

  You are leaving out the War of 1812 here Craig.

>
>
> So, I don't think the key issue is deciding who gets to vote, but whether
> people who already claim to be in positions of leadership get busy working to
> resolve their differences.

  This is exactly incorrect.  It *IS* about whom gets to VOTE.  Without the
individual VOTE there is no truly open process.

> A broad popular base is important for legitimating
> tough, dramatic decisions, and *can* be a good way to cultivate input of good
> ideas, but debates on the number of seats at the table can turn into a
> sideshow.

  It is NOT about how many seats at the Board of Director table but how and
WHO gets to select those that are seated there.

>
>
> Some last points. 1) The delegates to the Constitutional Convention produced a
> document that called for much stronger institutions of central government than
> the people back at the home states ever anticipated. 2) As much as this
> country has changed since then, we still use the original Constitution
> because, among other things, it was flexible enough to allow the for expansion
> of the enfranchised population.

  But without the Bill Of Rights the constitution is a useless and non-enforcable
document
and would have never been ratified by the 13 original colonies.  So it is with the

how we should build the Constitution of the Internet.  Without it's own
accompanying
"Internet Bill Of Rights" it will never be excepted.

>
>
> yours,
>
> Craig Simon

 Kindest regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1§ix.netcom.com