Gene,
I always figured that the IETF approach is what Jon & IANA more or less
represented, for better or worse--with the IETF's degree of open
participation. Indeed, much of the structure of the DNS is expressed
through the IETF RFC process.
ICANN's model is certainly a far cry from that--but the basis of the White
Paper was that Jon's system wasn't working anymore on its own. Jon
certainly wanted out of the creeping policy stuff, and other pressures--new
TLDs, trademark interests, and entrepreneurial interests in shared
registries with millions of dollars at stake--pushed this enough out of the
"mere" technical realm to require a more formal decisionmaking
structure. Jon seemed to feel he couldn't make (or shepard) any major new
DNS policy without an institution of some kind behind it. To
lawyers/constitutionalists that means procedural safeguards, due process,
notice & comment, balanced stakeholder representation, independent
review--all the stuff that a more informal process tries to do
intuitively. ...JZ
At 10:23 PM 7/8/99 , Gene Marsh wrote:
>Again, an IETF-like approach might work well here. Open participation and
>policy creation are the only real way to gain real consensus.
>
>+++++++++++++++++++++
>I'm very happy @.HOME(sm)
>Gene Marsh
>president, anycastNET Incorporated
Jon Zittrain
Executive Director, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
