Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
>> Critics of ICANN will likely request that the committee make ICANN >> reopen the selection process. ... Other critics include the ACLU and >> many of the unsuccessful TLD applicants, several of which might take >> ICANN to court. With any luck, ICANN will be replaced with something that the current critics find even more upsetting. > The controversy ought to be expected, as there would be no need for > ICANN if there were no difficult decisions to be made, asserts > Jonathan Zittrain, the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet > & Society at Harvard University. Well, I'm glad to see there's at least one grown-up involved. Noel
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
1. The web page of IETF which gives an overview of IETF (http://www.ietf.org/overview.html) says: > The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) is a large > open international community of network designers, operators, > vendors, and researchers concerned with the evolution of the > Internet architecture and the smooth operation of the Internet. > It is open to any interested individual. So, IETF is not just a body of ENGINEERING people. 2. IETF mailing list, which is a "general mailing list related to internet" need not be so much concerned about grape juice, but ICANN, may be yes. 3. As suggested by John C Klensin, I want to avoid flame-fest on this list. I will take this up in more ICANN specific forum. I will not be replying on this topic any more. regards, ravi. Randy Bush wrote: > >>> I found this news report of some concern > >> glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING > >> issue. > > So, who's issue is it then? > > first, i don't know whose issue grape juice is either. i just know it's not > an ietf issue. the ietf is not the internet's default garbage can. > > second, i suspect that the icann has mailing lists. you may want to look > for them. > > randy
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
> The prevailing view seems to be "the Commerce Department giveth, and the > Commerce Department can taketh away." the major premise is false.
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
>>> I found this news report of some concern >> glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING >> issue. > So, who's issue is it then? first, i don't know whose issue grape juice is either. i just know it's not an ietf issue. the ietf is not the internet's default garbage can. second, i suspect that the icann has mailing lists. you may want to look for them. randy
RE: To whom is ICANN answerable?
Hiding under "engineering" as if it were a warm fuzzy blanket that somehow depoliticizes your work, won't help to keep the Internet open and free. Thank you Graham for posting this to this group. -Original Message- From: Randy Bush [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2001 07:21 To: Graham Klyne Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: To whom is ICANN answerable? > I found this news report of some concern glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue. randy
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
So, who's issue is it then? ravi. Randy Bush wrote: > > I found this news report of some concern > > glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue. > > randy
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 10:54:45AM +, Graham Klyne wrote: > I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is > supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a > presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood > that the whole purpose of setting up ICANN was to provide Internet > governance that was trans-national, not answerable to US Government. > > #g > -- > > > > > Graham Klyne > ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > The U.S. Dept. of Commerce has control of the legacy root zone, and will likely be keeping that control for some time to come. They cannot give away that responsibility without jumping through some considerable hoops, and have made statements that they won't do this in the near future. So, anything that ICANN does w.r.t. the root zone has to be approved by DOC, thus making ICANN subject to review by the U.S. Government. David Schutt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 06:21:16AM -0800, Randy Bush wrote: > > I found this news report of some concern > > glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue. > > randy > It is a constraint. It defines the limits of the practicable. David Schutt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
--On Thursday, 08 February, 2001 10:54 + Graham Klyne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I found this news report of some concern, not because of what > ICANN is supposed to have done or not done, but because it > seems there is a presumption by some that ICANN is answerable > to US Congress. I understood that the whole purpose of > setting up ICANN was to provide Internet governance that was > trans-national, not answerable to US Government. Graham (and others), Speaking for myself only... >From my point of view, one of the purposes of ICANN is to draw and deal with as much of the fire that comes from making those administrative/ political decisions about the Internet as possible, keeping it away from the IETF so we can proceed with the technical work. Whether their decisions, administration, or control structure are right or not, they have mostly succeeded in that regard: when we cycle into discussions of politics and religion on this list (ICANN-related or otherwise), it is usually our own fault. And I would encourage you to take this question and any discussion of it elsewhere, e.g., to one of the ICANN or ICANN-haters lists, rather than turning up the noise level on the IETF list again. Anyone who doesn't want to hear more about the swamp, stop reading here. Anyone looking for strong statements from me for or against ICANN might as well stop reading too -- I want to say a few things in the hope of avoiding days of flaming, but they are going to be as balanced and neutral as I can make them. First of all, without commenting on this particular story, everyone who is (or has been) concerned about the ICANN topic should be aware that its entire history, and most of its pre-history, has been characterized by various interest groups who will seek any forum they can find to advance their positions. Many of them are extremely good at manipulating the press and getting unbalanced stories published, at finding politicians who see opportunities to impress their constituents and others with how Internet-involved they are, and so on. Most of the news stories have at least some roots in the truth, but the slant, spin, or interpretations can sometimes be quite impressive. These groups and individuals run the either spectrum: some are commercially self-serving, starting from the belief that ICANN is (or could) prevent them from getting rich (or richer) or that some non-ICANN arrangement might be more favorable to them. Others see vast opportunities in the Internet for a better world: better communication, universal democracy, and so on, and believe ICANN is failing by not facilitating those goals (or demonstrating their feasibility). There are group who see ICANN as a threat to their ideas to steal the world (or a large fraction of some of its resources), and those who believe ICANN isn't doing enough, quickly enough, to prevent that. And there are groups of people who, sometimes unknowingly, believe that the laws of physics or mathematics are unfair or inconvenient and that ICANN provides an opportunity to repeal them. And, of course, there are those who believe that, if the Internet evolved into a world of NATs (where no one had to allocate addresses to be sure that they were unique) and choose-it-yourself DNS roots and structures (where no one had to worry about uniqueness of names and each structure made up its own rules for dealing with potential conflicts). Some of them just ignore ICANN and go their own ways; others feel that the Internet would be better served if ICANN self-destructed and would like to help with that. Tough situation. I, for one, am glad we (IETF) don't have to solve it. There have been times when the technical side of the community has had to take fairly strong positions with ICANN, especially when they have been under pressure to repeal laws of physics. Documents like RFC 2826 and the IAB's effort to separate infrastructure from international organizations (and politics) in the DNS (see http://www.iab.org/iab/DOCUMENTS/statement-on-infrastructure-dom ains.txt) are symptoms of that process. It has been quite painful at times, but ICANN has, at least so far, made policy decisions consistent with technical constraints as we have explained them. Now, it would clearly be better if each change in the US political tides didn't bring a new set of inquiries into ICANN with all that implies about their ability and intent to interfere. And I would be a good deal happier if the original plans for US Govt handoff of whatever authority it claimed had happened sooner. The slowness may be due to conspiracy, or incompetence, or just the friction created by all of the forms of resistance and friction (and desire to get things right) outlined above. From an IETF perspective, it probably doesn't make a lot of difference -- if you want to debate that point, please take it elsewhere. But one unfortuate reality is that ICANN needs to be located somewhere, and, wherever it is and much as
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
> I found this news report of some concern glad to hear it. but it does not seem to be an internet ENGINEERING issue. randy
Re: To whom is ICANN answerable?
>I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is >supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a >presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood >that the whole purpose of setting up ICANN was to provide Internet >governance that was trans-national, not answerable to US Government. If you look at the corporate charter and articles of incorporation for ICANN, it is a California-based nonprofit public benefit corporation. There is no mention that I can find of ICANN being subject to the control of laws or policies of any governmental entities outside the U.S. The prevailing view seems to be "the Commerce Department giveth, and the Commerce Department can taketh away." Deep down, the U.S. still thinks it owns the Internet. Sigh. Cheers, RGF Robert G. Ferrell, CISSP Who goeth without humor goeth unarmed.
To whom is ICANN answerable?
I found this news report of some concern, not because of what ICANN is supposed to have done or not done, but because it seems there is a presumption by some that ICANN is answerable to US Congress. I understood that the whole purpose of setting up ICANN was to provide Internet governance that was trans-national, not answerable to US Government. #g -- "ICANN Faces Hearing in Congress Over Domain Selections" Computerworld Online (02/02/01); Thibodeau, Patrick On Feb. 8, the House Commerce Committee will hold a hearing to examine whether ICANN's approval of only seven new top level domains hampers competition. Critics of ICANN will likely request that the committee make ICANN reopen the selection process. Congress might even attempt to get the Department of Commerce to keep the new TLDs from being introduced, according to insiders. DotTV CEO Lou Kerner has been discussing the issue with the House Commerce Committee and might testify at the coming hearing. Other critics include the ACLU and many of the unsuccessful TLD applicants, several of which might take ICANN to court. Others think ICANN's limited introduction was wise. ICANN's former chairwoman, Esther Dyson, wanted to introduce more TLDs, but she sides with ICANN, saying that the organization needed to limit the number of TLDs because of technical concerns. ICANN's choice was "reasonable" at the time, asserts Dyson. "It's pretty obvious that more TLDs means more opportunity for small businesses and entrepreneurs to get meaningful domain names that reflect their business interests as well as [their] free speech interests," says Domain Name Rights Coalition President Mikki Barry. The controversy ought to be expected, as there would be no need for ICANN if there were no difficult decisions to be made, asserts Jonathan Zittrain, the co-director of the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. The government would not have the support of businesses if it attempted to resume control over the domain name process, asserts Rick Lane, director of e-commerce and Internet technology at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/02/02/010202hnicann.xml Graham Klyne ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
