>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:08:42 -0500
>From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Fwd: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium?
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>Mikki, can you please froward this? I am getting a bounce from [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 16:05:22 -0500
>From: "Harold Feld" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: How is ICANN (Un)Like an Aquarium?
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>Content-Disposition: inline
>
>Greg Skinner writes:
>
>>It's too bad that ICANN can't be set up like the Monterey Aquarium.
>>They got some seed money from a major company (I forget which) for a
>>fixed period of time, after which they were told they were on their
>>own. They're still around, and seem to be doing quite well. They
>>perform a variety of services, and are entrusted, to a certain extent,
>>with resources that have value to concerned parties, so their
>>situation is analogous to ICANN's.
>
>Unfortunately, the situation is not analogous.
>Unlike ICANN, no one really cares
>if the Aquarium is "captured" by its corporate patrons.
>Those who have chosen to entrust the acquarium
>with resources did so after the acquarium proved
>itself, and have alternatives in the event the acquarium
>proves untrustworthy.
>
>This is the real problem I have with those who have
>advocated that ICANN should run under the rules of a
>traditional business or non-profit, rather than under more
>stringent rules of openness usually applied only to governments
>(or, as Mike Nelson put it in Boston, if the Red Cross doesn't
>operate under these procedures, why should ICANN?) ICANN
>controls the bottleneck facilities of the Internet. I can do without
>the Aquarium, if I don't like its sponsors or exhibits or policies.
>I can get blood from hospitals without worrying about the Red
>Cross. But I will be unable to get a domain name or an IP address
>without encountering a mandatory ICANN contract via my name
>registrar or ARIN (or whoever sells it to me second or third hand).
>
>It's not like the world lacks for models. For example, this
>past week I dealt with the frequency coordinator for the
>UHF band in southern california. This is a person that
>licensees in the band agree should make sure that
>frequency usage is properly coordinated so that there is no
>interference (ever wonder how the media circus surrounding
>a major sporting event functions smoothly, along with everybody's
>headsets, radios, etc. It takes a lot of work.) This is a for-profit service
>(frequency coordinators take a fee) and has no official standing
>within the FCC (some frequencies have more formally recognized
>freq. coordinators, where the FCC requires approval of the freq.
>coordinator before it will consider an application).
>
>Why does this model work? Many reasons. One of the
>primary reasons it works is because the end result,
>freq. coordination, is seen as in everyone's best interest.
>Nor is the job of the freq. coordinator to make decisions
>regarding policy. Freq. coordinators do not require new
>services to demonstrate they will "enhance broadcasting"
>or that they will protect broadcasters' copyrights. When
>freq. coordinators want a policy change (as happened in the
>800 MHz some years back), they take it to the Commission
>rather than implementing it themselves.
>
>The recent ICANN proposed certification requirements make it
>clear that ICANN considers itself a policy-formulating
>body, not merely a technical standards or coordinating
>body. Otherwise, requirements as to business model (e.g., name
>portabilty) or protecting policy interests (e.g., exclusion of famous
>names) would not be a part of the certification requirements.
>Given that ICANN sits on the Internet bottleneck facilites,
>names and numbers, issues such as funding and representation
>take on tremendous significance.
>
>Harold
>
