At 09:00 AM 2/23/99 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
>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.
ICANN has been a difficult issue only because of the gTLD turmoil. All of
the other issues you name were not problems that needed solving. The gTLD
turmoil has been built up nicely to create confusion and concern in the
other areas, though none existed before.
>the same problem on all fronts: people don't trust it.
Gosh, Jim, do you think it might have something to do with "people"
haranguing about it and making it impossible to make serious
progress? (I'm skipping over the rather remarkable leap of faith needed to
buy into the sweeping generality in your use of the term "people", as if
there is a broad consensus of criticism, though there is not.)
It's difficult to develop trust for anything that is constantly subject to
politicization and incessant challenging, Jim.
>In other words, you "supported" the IFWP by redefining its objectives to
My language was clear and simple and said nothing like your
interpretation. I supported IFWP a) when it became open, and b) during its
pursuit of its original objectives. Those objectives were explicitly
stated on its web page, and it's been a wonder how you find it possible to
view a desire to stay with the listed objectives as "redefining its
objectives".
>be something that you preferred, and then proceeded to mumble reams of
>psycho-babble at all who disagreed with you.
As opposed to the sort of babble some others have enjoyed engaging in?
Perhaps you are referring to my observation that the IFWP process had no
methodological basis for claiming consensus? Gosh. Must be my use of the
word "methodological"? A shame that an educated person resorts to such a
style of cavalierly deriding what they do not understand.
>[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.
Attack? I thought it was an objective tally. Perhaps you actually HAVE
supported a proposal that was on the table and I missed it. If my memory
is faulty, what real project/effort/proposal -- that is, something detailed
and having an organized effort to implement it -- have you supported?
>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.
There is a basic difference between a structure like ICANN and a structure
like NSI. The term "monopoly" is more typically applied to the latter,
since it is driven by straight profit motive. The former is a complex
oversight organization, itself, and thus does not derive direct benefit
from the actions taken.
For all that one or another person might like to criticize one or another
aspect about ICANN, it has a broad base for doing its work, including the
basis for obtaining decisions. NSI does not.
It is somewhere between fantastically bizarre and unprofessionally
misleading to equate the two activities.
>Legal mechanisms exist for dealing with the NSI monopoly. It's just a
No, actually, they don't. NSF and the White House has sufficiently muddied
things so as to make a serious attack on NSI's position remarkably tough,
never mind the fact that NSI now has vastly deeper pockets than anyone who
is likely to attack it, especially since its policies favor larger
organizations.
>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
The claim of US power is demonstrably false, by virtue of the continuing
pattern of poor decision-making the USG has made with respect to NSI and
the continuing behavior by NSI to act in manners generally viewed as
unfriendly to the community. Take, for example, the meaningless technical
"advisory" activity that was agreed to, ensuring that NSI is in no way
obligated to provide public information -- never mind that they are free to
ignore any resulting feedback.
>ICANN appears to be attempting to establish a global regulatory
The cumbersomeness of the mechanisms being developed by ICANN are a direct
result of the constant requirements and demands coming from vocal
critics. The original plan from IANA was much simpler. It was made more
complicated not because of demonic predilections by a power-mad board but
from constant pressure by a tiny minority from the community.
If you want to blame someone, blame that vocal minority, Jim. But, then,
taking that sort of responsibility for the current state of affairs is not
as easy as continuing to proffer criticisms of others.
>I do not advocate destroying ICANN. I advocate delay. Time will let
What is unfortunate is that you believe delay is not the same as
destruction, in spite of the 5 year track record to the contrary.
>What the Internet needs is a successor to IANA. IANA had no formal power;
IANA had a great deal of formal power, Jim. How very strange to think it
did not.
>it had only the moral authority that comes from trust. The ICANN board,
Moral authority can come from something other than trust?
>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
That was the original proposal from IANA. Some folks rejected it vocally
enough to get things changed. I guess you intended to support that simpler
proposal?
d/
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dave Crocker Tel: +60 (19) 3299 445
<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Post Office Box 296, U.P.M.
Serdang, Selangor 43400 MALAYSIA
Brandenburg Consulting
<http://www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1 (408) 246 8253
Fax: +1(408)273 6464 675 Spruce Dr., Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA
