On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> At 09:12 PM 2/22/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
> >> Jim, had the original "compromise" effort been allowed to proceed, we would
> >
> >What "compromise" effort?
>
> The IAHC.
ROFL.
> Its focus was solely upon gTLD adiministration, but that is, in fact, the
> only serious topic causing difficulty for ICANN.
ICANN has four objectives: management of the top level of the DNS,
management of IP address space, protocols, and operation of the
root name servers.
As regards the first, it has two parts, gTLDs and ccTLDs. As you say,
ICANN is having a great deal of difficulty on the gTLD side. But the
ccTLD registries aren't exactly queuing up to swear loyalty to ICANN.
On the contrary.
Similarly, although ICANN claims authority over the IP address space,
the RIRs have kept their distance.
As regards protocols, the IETF is similarly unwilling to submit to
ICANN. There is no enthusiasm for the PSO.
And finally we come to the root name servers, to find that the US
government took a long cold look at ICANN and left the status quo
unchanged. NSI runs a.root-servers.net.
In other words, the gTLDs are not ICANN's sole problem. ICANN is facing
the same problem on all fronts: people don't trust it.
> You who were one of the most active and constant complainers against
> >the IFWP, which was a real effort to progress, should consider these
>
> Nicely selective memory, Jim, failing to distinguish early objections from
> later support.
"Support" followed by:
> On the other hand, some folks tried to pretend that the IFWP had a larger
> mandate than it did, and they tried to use its discussions to claim the
> existence of consensus opinions for which there was no basis. I certainly
> did not support such coercive and out-of-bound efforts.
In other words, you "supported" the IFWP by redefining its objectives to
be something that you preferred, and then proceeded to mumble reams of
psycho-babble at all who disagreed with you.
> >monopoly. You and your allies have succeeded in creating something
> >that has persuaded me that there are things much worse than NSI's
> >monopoly in .COM/NET/ORG.
[Dave, unwilling to deal with qustions of substance, replies with
the usual personal attack and diversion of focus to psychological
misinterpretations of history:]
> Jim, you have pretty much always challenged and complained about whatever
> current proposal was on the table.
> >I see no risk or loss in delaying ICANN. As time passes, the ICANN
>
> It's clear that some people see no risk. That is good indication of just
> how disconnected they are from the real issues. THEY do not have the
> continuing problems dealing with an unregulated monopoly that has seriously
> flawed policies, developed in a closed manner, and an operations record
> that is mediocre, at best.
WE face the possibility of having to deal with an unregulated monopoly
with seriously flawed policies, developed in a closed manner, one with a
non-existent operations record, a monopoly that is attempting to assert
jurisdiction over the entire planet: ICANN.
> So as the critics love to argue about openness in the abstract, their
> efforts result in the continuing of an entirely closed, profit-based
> decision process controlling the most popular portion of the Internet's
> name space.
Legal mechanisms exist for dealing with the NSI monopoly. It's just a
monopoly, like many others. The US government has complete power over
NSI. If the USG fails to act, the European Commission's DG XIV and
similar agencies in other governments can take action against NSI.
National governments have been dealing with monopolies and cartels for
well over a century. It's a problem that is well understood.
ICANN appears to be attempting to establish a global regulatory
structure. The board that is doing this was created by invisible
hands; it carries out its proceedings in secret. It has no mandate
from anyone. Should it succeed in becoming the first real global
regulatory authority, there will be no checks on its power. Before
we allow such a thing to be born, we should pause and think.
I do not advocate destroying ICANN. I advocate delay. Time will let
us get a better view of this new entity; time will let the ICANN board
either reach a better understanding of the Internet or find themselves
a graceful exit.
What the Internet needs is a successor to IANA. IANA had no formal power;
it had only the moral authority that comes from trust. The ICANN board,
because it does not have the trust of the Internet community, is
attempting to give itself coercive powers over the Internet. This may
suit the needs of their collective pride; it would certainly relieve
the frustration of the ICANN board. But it doesn't suit our needs.
We need an ICANN that is a successor to IANA. This is a lightweight ICANN,
one that has the trust of the Internet community, the trust that comes from
openness and competence. The purposes of that lightweight ICANN will be
those expressed in its articles. The successor to IANA will act as a
focal point for cooperation between the thousands of independent networks
that comprise the Internet. In time, after it demonstrates its competence
in managing the four narrow functions spelled out in its articles, other
functions may be entrusted to it.
--
Jim Dixon Managing Director
VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of Council Telecommunications Director
Internet Services Providers Association EuroISPA EEIG
http://www.ispa.org.uk http://www.euroispa.org
tel +44 171 976 0679 tel +32 2 503 22 65
