At 05:49 PM 11/29/2003 +0000, Paul Robinson wrote: >John C Klensin wrote: > >>With regard to ICANN and its processes, I don't much like the >>way a good deal of that has turned out, even while I believe >>that things are gradually getting better. I lament the set of >>decisions that led to the US Govt deciding that it needed to be >>actively involved and to some of the risks, delays, and socially >>undesirable statements that situation has created. > >OK, the big issue for those countries that want ICANN to be disbanded and for the >Internet to be handed over to the ITU is quite simple: ICANN is a US-government >controlled entity subject to US/Californian law.
Please read the most recent MOU. The US Department of Commerce has gone to considerable effort to outline the path by which ICANN becomes the party responsible for the updating of the DNS root. The control you assert is quite limited even today. Any formal body has to have some jurisdiction in which it is constituted. One can argue whether California non-profit law is better or worse than being a UN entity. I believe there are arguments against the latter as much as there may arguments against the former. >That's great if you're the US government and even semi-reasonable if you're an >American. Absolutely awful if you're Chinese or Korean. that's not at all clear. ICANN has tried to promote the adoption of IDN, for example, in a responsible way. John Klensin's efforts, and others, to promote international compatibility to enhance the ability for parties to communicate is commendable. What do you think is awful? >The IETF is about as close as we've got as an "authority" on the Internet that is not >bounded by geographic boundaries, governmental control or commercial contract. You >can make a reasonable argument that we should be running the show here, not ICANN. Not unless you want to take on the full burden of Internet Governance written large. Not even ICANN wishes to do that. In fact, ICANN's role is very limited compared to the full scope of Internet Governance. Issues such as fraud, taxation, intellectual property protection, dispute resolution, illegal actions are governmental matters and not even UN has the appropriate jurisdiction. It will take cooperation among governments and thoughtful domestic legislation to deal with many of these matters. ICANN has high regard for IETF and IAB and for that reason there is an IAB liaison appointed to the Board of Directors. >The UNITC meeting needed to happen several years ago, but now we're there, >realistically there is only one option left for a single, cohesive Internet to remain >whilst taking into account ALL the World's population: ICANN needs to become a UN >body. nonsense - as constituted today, ICANN is a better forum for interested constituencies to debate policy FOR THOSE AREAS THAT ARE IN ICANN'S PURVIEW (not shouting, just emphasis on limited purview of ICANN). The problem with the arguments I have heard, including yours, is that you may be thinking of Internet Governance in the large while ICANN's role is small and should stay that way. We need other venues in which to deal with the larger problems and perhaps UN or some of its constituents have a role to play. Probably WIPO and WTO do as well. >>general". So, while ICANN, IMO, continues to need careful >>watching -- most importantly to be sure that it does not expand >>into "governance" issues that are outside its rational scope-- I >>don't see "give it to XXX" or "everyone runs off in his own >>direction" as viable alternatives. > >Neither do I, but ICANN have clearly demonstrated: > >1. They don't listen to us, or those parties who have a genuine vested interest in >the Internet, UNLESS that party is a US Commercial or Governmental entity. I disagree - please consider the last ICANN meeting in which the Board went some distance to making changes in its policies in response to international constituency inputs. >2. Their incompetence at politcal levels has actually caused a delay in making the >Internet available to those countries that need access to affordable communications >infrastructures the most. Sorry, it is a lot more complex than you seem to think - the question of who should have responsibility for a CCTLD is often very complex - it is sometimes not even clear who the government of country X is. >3. Putting Computer Scientists in charge of anything is fundamentally a bad idea. In >fact, they have shown they are worse at being in charge than politicians and >lawyers... they will never get another chance after this god-awful mess. The Board is not made up of computer scientists alone; nor is the staff of ICANN. By your assertion, IETF should not be in charge of anything either. I disagree with that, too. >In ICANN's support, the alternative - the "ITU idea" - is *horrible*. The ITU is not >about open communications infrastrucutres - it's about *closed* infrastructures with >contracts and licensing and costs and the other paraphenalia we want to limit the >effect of in the context of the Internet. > >>On the other hand, one of the nice things about the network as >>it is now constituted is that anyone has the option of >>opting-out: disconnecting, setting up a private DNS and a >>private addressing system, and communicating, if at all, through >>a restrictive, address-and-protocol-translating gateway. We > >No, no, no, NO. To allow this would to happen would be a genuine shame. How popular >is Internet2? Why? I rest my case...' there are any number of virtual private networks, some of them running on top of the public Internet - that's fine as long as we also keep a fully connected, public Internet in operation. Moreover, the creation of new name spaces such as instant messaging handles has created new and useful infrastructure - what's wrong with that? vint cerf >-- >Paul Robinson > > Vint Cerf SVP Technology Strategy MCI 22001 Loudoun County Parkway, F2-4115 Ashburn, VA 20147 703 886 1690 (v806 1690) 703 886 0047 fax [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.mci.com/cerfsup
