Hi Craig,
Since you are new to these debates,
it is not unexpected that you would
come to some conclusions that are not
supported by the history behind this
debate.
My history begins as yours, with Jon
Postel and the old IANA doing a fine
job administering the technical resources
of the Internet. What changed was not
Jon Postel, nor even the function of the
IANA, but it was the Internet itself.
This became apparent as the IANA tried
unsuccessfully to expand the name space.
Jon Postel wrote two drafts that would
have done so with new, competitive TLDs.
If my memory is correct, the second draft
included a domain name tax that was to be
paid directly to ISOC. This was hotly
contested at the time.
So after two failed attempts, Jon turned
the process over to Don Heath, who decided
to include the ITU and WIPO in the process.
It was during this IAHC process that the
grand scheme for reclaiming ownership of
the name space was hatched. It was called
the gTLD-MoU.
When the U.S. Government finally intervened,
the gTLD-MoU was hotly contested, much like
ICANN is now. In fact, I could probably
take some old email, change a couple of
names, and use them again today ;-)
When the White Paper was finally announced,
it was described as an attempt to create:
a globally and functionally representative organization, operated on the
basis of sound and transparent processes that protect against capture by
self-interested factions, and that provides robust, professional
management. The new entity's processes need to be fair, open, and
pro-competitive. And the new entity needs to have a mechanism for evolving
to reflect changes in the constituency of Internet stakeholders.
http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/press/dnsburr.htm
This was palatable to most participants in the
debate. And while it's true that people like
Larry Lessig and Rhonda Hueben never agreed with
the White Paper, most people were willing to
give it a chance.
For my part, I expected a fair, honest approach
to establishing this "Newco". I expected a set
of by-laws that clearly laid out their mission,
limitations, and process rules. I expected the
"Newco" to *follow* their by-laws, using the fair
processes as described. In other words, I expected
a consent of the governed approach to Internet
governance.
Unfortunately, what we have today, is nothing
like the White Paper description above. What
we have today is the gTLD-MoU reborn, with a
much larger scope, and a slightly larger base
of support.
IMHO & FWIW.
Jay.
At 12:53 PM 7/13/99 , Craig McTaggart wrote:
>> The Internet Needs an Independence Day
>> by Solveig Singleton
>>
><snip>
>>
>> While we sleep, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers,
>> ICANN, is creating a mechanism to subdue the Internet. The U.S. government
>> created ICANN to administer a few technical rules. But ICANN seems poised
>> to make itself an international government for the Internet, not a
>> technical-standards body. ICANN's regime is neither democratic nor
>> constitutional. . .
>>
><snip>
>>
>> Founding documents and institutions matter -- the ideas outlined in the
>> Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution played a crucial role
>> in shaping America's future. This basic guidance is completely lacking for
>> Internet governance.
>
>First private-sector self-governance was good, now it's bad. In October,
>meaningful constitutions and public-style governance methods were bad, now
>apparently they're good. Larry Lessig and others have been saying for some
>time now how important proper democratic structures will be in this process,
>but early on, most Americans on this list, at least, seemed to equate
>democratic structures with "heavy-handed, top-down bureaucratic government."
>Well, it's proving tough to have it both ways, isn't it?
>
>Many in this compressed "Internet community" (i.e. those who know what a
>root zone is) think everything would be just fine if only they were in
>charge. But if other people are going to be in charge instead, then they
>can't possibly do anything right, nor can they have any authority. The
>American libertarian crap above ("While we sleep..." - please) would apply
>to ANY body which tried to take over Jon Postel's (and others') jobs.
>Postel was a tyrant, a dastardly threat to Liberty. How could he not have
>been overthrown? His regime was neither democratic nor constitutional. But
>it worked, and had the authority of the USG (and the vague support of the
>much-vaunted but unidentifiable "Internet Community") behind it. It's only
>now that his power is being written down that it looks objectionable.
>
>"Administering a few technical rules" IS Internet governance. Coordinating
>technical standards IS Internet governance. What Solveig Singleton
>describes as ICANN making itself into an "International government for the
>Internet" is precisely what this whole process has been about: basing IANA's
>functions in an internationally-recognized, authoritative, stable,
>non-governmental body. It's ICANN's critics who now want it to act more
>like a government, not ICANN.
>
>Some of those critics now regularly say that they never needed IANA anyway
>and will take their routers and go elsewhere. Unfortunately there just
>might not be an elsewhere anymore, at least not one that matters in the way
>the Internet matters. If we want one global network we have to work
>together to build and maintain it. I've been all for democracy and
>constitutions all along, even when real, effective democracy and real,
>enforceable constitutions were considered bad things. It's nice to see the
>Cato Institute now recognize them as good things.
>
>Craig McTaggart
>Graduate Student
>Faculty of Law
>University of Toronto
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
