On 1 Dec 2003, Paul Vixie wrote: > > ICANN's obligation is to guarantee to the public the stability of DNS at > > the root layer. > > i disagree...
>From ICANN's own bylaws: The mission of The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") is to coordinate, at the overall level, the global Internet's systems of unique identifiers, and in particular to ensure the stable ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and secure operation of the Internet's unique identifier systems ... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ [emphasis added] According to m-w.com, "ensure" means "to make sure, certain, or safe : Guarantee". In other words, ICANN's mission is a promise, a guarantee. But that's not all: ICANN's contract, or rather "Memorandum of Understanding" with the United States requires, yes requires, that ICANN, yes ICANN, not the RIRs, not the root server operators, "to design, develop, and test the mechanisms, methods, and procedures" ... to oversee "the operation of the authoritative root server system" and "the allocation of IP number blocks". Those are ICANN's own promises that it has made, in legal document after legal document, to the United States Government. ICANN may say otherwise, you may believe otherwise. But that's the contractual words in black and white. It has been the same language since 1998. In other words, ICANN has made a contractual committment to tell you, as an operator of a root server, what "mechanisms, methods, and procedures" you must follow to operate your servers. And that word "oversight" in the MoU does not mean that ICANN promises to merely watch how you and the other root server operators do what you do very well. The word "oversight" includes an ability to reject and to command. In other words, ICANN has promised the USG that it's authority over root operations supersedes your own. We are all well aware that in actual fact that ICANN has no legal authority over the root server operators. And we are all aware that the root server operators have been wary of entering into agreements with ICANN regarding the operation of the root servers. That, however, has not stopped ICANN from making a written promise to the United States govenment that it will both oversee the root server operations and "formalize" its relationship with the root server operators. Perhaps ICANN is willing to admit that it has no real authority - presumably by declaring to the US Department of Commerce that it considers those sections that I mentioned to be obsolete and not obligatory upon ICANN, and by removing the obligation to "ensure the stable and secure operation" that is contained in its own bylaws - and clearly articulating to everyone, governments and businesses included, that ICANN is nothing more than an advisory body that operates only by eminating good vibes in the hope that others, who do have real power to act, will act in resonance. In the meantime ICANN goes about telling governments of the world that it does far more than emit nudges and hopes; ICANN tells governments that it ensures and guarantees. And outside of the IETF and related communities ICANN does not say that it is merely an advisory body lacking authority. ICANN's message to the business and intellectual property communities is that ICANN stands strong and firm and will let nothing interfere with the stable operation of the internet. Your note makes my point - that ICANN is in many regards an empty shell, and has been one for years, that has no real power except in the realm of the (over) protection of intellectual property, allocation of a very few new top level domains, and the determination of who among compeiting contenders is worthy to operate contested ccTLDs. At the end of the day - and it is nearly the end of the day here - the fact of the matter is that ICANN is telling different stories to different groups. To the IETF, ICANN holds itself out as one of the guys, merely a warm and fuzzy "coordinator". But to the business community, ICANN holds itself forth as a guarantor of internet stability. And to the United States Govenment, ICANN has undertaken to make legal promises to the effect that it is in charge of DNS, including root server operations, and IP address allocation. --karl-- PS, if I am "late to the party" on anycast issues than it ought to be easy for ICANN to articulate the answers to my concerns. This is not an idle request. The internet community deserves proof that these questions are truly answered by hard, reviewable, analysis. Moreover, with Verisign and sitefinder lingering on the horizon it is not beyond conception that Verisign will wave the flag of bias and ask ICANN to demonstrate why anycast got such an easy entree.