On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Dave Crocker wrote:
> 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 mother of all conspiracy theories. What is as obvious as the nose
on your face or the beard on your chin is that ICANN itself is a major
source of confusion and concern.
> >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.)
I asked at ICANN's Boston meeting how many people would trust the root
name servers to ICANN. I saw one person put up his hand. This was
quite remarkable. There were no murmurs of protest. No one stood up
to speak of universal trust for ICANN. Quite the contrary. There was
silence. When I finished speaking -- and the theme of what I said was
that ICANN lacked trust -- and concluded with a recommendation that the
ICANN board delay taking action until it had that trust, there was loud
applause.
> >[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?
I am a director of ISPA, the UK's Internet trade association. I
chaired the working group that rewrote its articles to give power
to its members. I chaired the working group that wrote the constitution
of Internet Watch Foundation, the watchdog body now being copied across
Europe. I was the founding president of EuroISPA, the pan-European
Internet trade association and played a major role in writing its
articles. I was one of the founders of MaNAP, the UK's second major
peering point. I chaired the working group that changed the articles of
the LINX, the London peering point, to end a bitter internal dispute that
lasted more than a year. And I was also of course on the IFWP steering
committee.
ISPA, the IWF, EuroISPA, the LINX, and MaNAP are all fully functional
bodies that play important roles in the operation of the UK and
European Internet. Each of these bodies is the result of compromise.
Each is run openly and transparently. ICANN could learn a great deal
from studying these organisations.
The IFWP failed. In my opinion, it failed because of the no-compromise
commandos exhorted by Don Heath to "overwhelm" the IFWP. Well, Dave,
you guys overwhelmed it. Congratulations. But don't blame ICANN on us.
> >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.
> ...
> It is somewhere between fantastically bizarre and unprofessionally
> misleading to equate the two activities.
I didn't equate NSI and ICANN. I said that NSI seemed likely to be
the lesser of two evils. It's somewhere between fantastically bizarre
and unprofessionally misleading to claim that I equated the two.
> >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.
The fact that the US government hasn't chosen to follow your preferred
policy regarding NSI does not mean that the US has no legal mechanisms
for dealing with monopolies.
> >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
If it's demonstrably false, demonstrate it. Prove that the US government
lacks the legal tools necessary to deal with monopolies. In other words,
rewrite history. Prove that Teddy Roosevelt wasn't busting trusts 100
years ago. Go ahead, Dave. Show us your stuff.
> >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.
No one has spoken of demonic predilections here. I have, however, said
several times that the ICANN board knows little about the Internet and
has not demonstrated any competence in solving its problems.
> >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?
Sometimes, Dave, you just ask for it. I wrote a reply to the Green
Paper that proposed the creation of an "IANA lite". Did I support my
own proposal? Yes, of course I did.
--
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
