 |
 |
 |
|
Try this angle I'm in the midst of an emial interveiw with a European publication, researching through Cluetrain sign-ups for intersting facts and insights. Here's one from a high-up at a familiar international organization:
This struck me as poignant. I spoke to a government group the other week and was impressed by how dedicated they were to their work. They're not in it for the money. They're in it to Do Good. That's a major oddity here in Silicon Valley, and I like it. You may have to go to your library for this one The July 31st issue of The New Yorker carries an eye-bugging story of fear and loathing between two of the biggest brontosauri in the late Mezocorpic: Time Warner and Disney. The bottom lines: 1) Both companies say they are now on our side, advocating open access; and 2) Time Warner's decision to muscle Disney in contract negotiaions by cutting off ABC for millions of cable subscribers may be the biggest business blunder of the new Millenium if it ends up killing the merger with AOL.
Check out the v1.0 draft (warning: it's a .pdf) of his June lecture at "Free Software" in Tutzing, Germany. I'm kind of a lily-livered Libertarian, which is probably why I'm gradually warming to Larry's regulatory urgings. The Net is ours, not Disney's, AOL's or Time Warner's, no matter how much content or how many pipes they own. We need to protect it. How? Read this piece. Then read Larry. If you still have time, let me know what you think. By the way, The New Yorker still has the best writing and the best cartoons in the world, yet remains an advertising-starved landmark of irony and taste. Their Web presence is so minimal that it qualifies on relative terms as an absence. Subscribe anyway. Support your mammal of choice
The head lemur, I have found myself in states of agreement with the lemur in the past. So I trust him on this one, and dread that this ICANN business with the UDNDRP is something, like patents, I need to worry about. Vote as you will. Just know your lemur is doing your worrying for you.
|
If it doesn't, it will at least cause more of what both parties want least, which is regulatory intervention. But maybe that's not a bad thing, since the most influential party, in the story and probably in reality as well, is 
