You might like a view from a senior IETF figure.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:33:53 -0800
From: Randy Bush
Subject: Re: ICANN reformation
from: http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm
[ and the announcement
http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm ]
"It is now more than three years since the creation of ICANN, and there
are some real accomplishments: the introduction of a competitive registrar
market, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the creation of seven new
global Top Level Domains."
<flame>
the registrar market is not usefully competitive. the seven new tlds are
a failure. the udrp is kind of a success, but it took tanks and guns to
keep icann's lawyer from handing it to washington trademark lobbiests and
the recording industry. and the new gtlds are failures, many are not even
working and neustar had another big layoff last week.
the story i get is that the board, after much 'discussion' has let this
brilliant idea float. at least the following were arguments
o icann is running out of money
o icann needs $20m, half, $10m, is to run the root servers
o the dnso has been a failure
o governments will give icann money
imiho,
o again, icann is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging
power rather than providing simple stewardship and service. icann is
brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic. the problem
is they have the internet on board.
o why does icann have to spend $10m to run the root servers when it
never usd to cost anything? they're run voluntarily. heck, i know
isps who give free circuits to them!
o icann could be run for $1-2m/yr
- scale down operations and fancy meetings *completely*, meet at
ripe, inet, ...
- get back to simple stewardship and management
- *earn* the cooperation of cctlds, registries, and they can
support a *small* icann, ...
o the idea that governments will give icann money is probably flawed.
the criminal mob would be more likely to do so, and would likely
extract less of a price.
o explaining reality to the current icann powers that be is extremely
hard. explaining it to governments, who, under this plan, would be
given vast power, will be virtually impossible. clueless bureaucrats
can actually *break* the internet.
o the failure of the dnso is merely the failure of one of icann's
sillinesses. it is no loss, it is a demonstration of a fatal
misunderstanding of reality.
o icann only needs to
- coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs
- maintain the root zone file
- slowly try to get MsOU with the folk icann actually serves
one computer scientist used to do this as a part time job. how much
of a mountain can we make of a molehill?
o the board should immediately install a president, or whatever the
position is called, who actually remembers how to serve the internet
simply, with constructive cooperation, and less than $20m/yr. as no
one with clue will want to do this job for a long time, it likely
needs to be a pro tem appointment.
o if the president pro tem is not technical, get a cto or vp tech pro
tempore. it will need an understanding of the technology to scale
icann back without damaging anything.
o there is one good thing for scaling icann down now. the pressure for
new gtlds has to be less, seeing the great financial boon the seven
new ones have not seen.
o another is that the constituencies are tired, years of doing nothing
but spending money on fancy hotels and creating massive hot air.
years of the icann process may have actually filtered some clue into
the players.
i suspect that only the combined voices of the isps, ietf, registries,
etc. can insert some rationality into this craziness.
get icann under control, shrink it back down to something small, and
SERVE the internet, stop trying to rule it.
</flame>
randy
-- you are free to redistribute this message
-
To unsubscribe from nznog, send email to majordomo(a)list.waikato.ac.nz
where the body of your message reads:
unsubscribe nznog
