At 07:29 PM 7/3/99 , Richard Sexton wrote:
>At 07:08 PM 7/3/99 -0400, Jonathan Zittrain wrote:
> >through governments, that might even be solace, but my point is that even
> >in its current incarnation ICANN seems to me to have quite tight
> >constraints on what it can do.
>
>I don't know how you can say that when it's ignoring it's own bylaws
>Jonothon.
I've probably not been following the list enough lately, but I'd want to
talk specifics here.
> >"independent." We need ICANN to be able to make decisions in the public
> >interest,
>
>No, ICANN is supposed to coordinate technical parameters relating
>to an aggregate of private networks.
Deciding who gets to run ".biz" or whether there ought to be a mandatory
dispute resolution process across registries just seems like more than
coordinating parameters to me. This is Craig's point, or at least mine:
ICANN gets hit for having grandiose plans of world governance as it
struggles to parse a tankerful of committees, independent review processes,
membership issues, notice/comment requirements, international
representation, etc., so it can be "fair"; it all seems like overkill to
those who wish everything could be pretty much quietly run the way it used
to be--including a limited scope of functions. On the other hand, those
who push for ICANN to just forget all the process and do, with as few
resources as possible, the job that Jon used to do, get hit for seeking to
have the Internet run by an unaccountable secret cabal.
For better or worse, I think there are powerful interests:
- trademark interests hating litigation alone as the way to strip others
of what they thought were trademark holders' domain names;
- entreprenuerial interests wanting a piece of the registrar/registry
business, either through running new TLD's or sharing registration
functions within existing ones
who have pushed the management of these functions beyond the technical,
calling for decisions in both realms that are policy/$/politically
based. Jon wasn't in an easy position to handle it; he'd been saying he
wanted to unload personal responsibility for the functions IANA was
performing before the white paper was written.
> >and addresses..." That's inevitably something with a political/policy
> >component; one look at the WIPO suggestions makes that clear, and all the
> >anxiety over process and accountability shows that this isn't mere
> >standards-setting like how big the flange on an A/C cord should be.
>
>Go back and listen to the Boston meeting, or read the transcripts
>of the ORSC/ICANN conference calls. Back then, membership was job #1.
Yes! It seems to me that membership had to happen quickly. I'd hate for
this board to implement something like the WIPO report before elections are
held and the SOs fully constituted. So far it hasn't tried to do that.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"They were of a mind to govern us and we were of a mind to govern ourselves."
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
