Re: [ga] Developing an alternative to ICANN 2.0
Interesting comments. As usual moderately open minded in status quo.
Interesting because my vision is not far from yours but leads to a totally
At 10:24 30/05/03, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
>Richard Henderson wrote:
>>I think ICANN 2.0 perceives itself as well on the way to consolidating its
>>positions. Its strategy with regard to the inclusive namespace is probably
>>to overwhelm it and to duplicate some of its key operating tlds.
>Few days ago I started commenting on this post, but then I realized I was
>reproposing the old debate "single root - multiple root", about which I
>believe everything has been said already in the years.
You may want to say that everything you wanted to hear has not been listen to.
I think to the countrary that we are on the verge of a drastic evolution.
Figures, DoS, experimentation, concepts, national position, security
issues, White House plans, etc. Everything seem to tell that we will soon
enter into the too long delayed DNS.2 phase.
>However, the opening sentence of Richard made me think about where we are
>in the process of ICANN 2.0, and do we really have an ICANN 2.0.
Yes. I would say we have entered the post-Joe-Sims area. The first
decisions of Paul Towmey seem to make sense in term of Network cooperative
managerment instead of World ruling.
>We are on the eve of a major election/nomination of the ICANN BoD. This is
>supposed to be an event that will deeply influence the Internet policy in
>the years to come, as a large number of Directors is involved.
>However, I don't feel the tension that I have experienced at the times of
>the selection of the initial BoD. The hectic horse-trading, the
>circulation of names of candidates, the intense phone calling, the gossip
>on the lists, the cross-vetos, and so on, is not there.
>Maybe I'm just now less attentive, or simply not so much in contact with
>the decision-makers. Of course the nominating committee is probably being
>flodded right now by email, phone calls, letters and what else by more or
>less influent people recommending candidates. But the general feeling is,
>looking on the low traffic about the subject on the public lists, that the
>interest is generally lower than at the time of the first BoD.
May be it is that there is low interest too among the world about is to
replace Nancy Vitcory or any Sub-Assistant at the State Deparment. ICANN
has now clearly set-up its course as an US Agency managing the US Internet
and lending an hand to the IANA. They had the choice: the IANA or the
mission creep (US or international). They retained the US mission creep as
their main focus.
>The reason, IMHO, is that the stakes are lower.
>I'm not sure whether ICANN has established itself or not, but I am sure
>that some of the critical decisions have been taken. And together with
>this, the economic situation has dramatically changed from years ago.
>Consider the following examples (please be aware that I am not passing
>judgement on things or on somebody else's position, I only try to explain
>what I observe from the fence where I am sitting now).
>* The NSi monopoly issue has been put at rest, with the trading of .org in
>exchange of the burial of the principle of the Registrar/Registry
>separation. This decision cannot reasonably be changed in the future,
>whatever the composition and attitude of the Directors.
>* New gTLDs have been introduced, but no dramatic change of the global
>picture is to be seen. I don't see any new actor making easy billions as
>seemed to be the forecast years ago. The new Board will probably only
>continue a careful introduction of new TLDs, following the recent
>recommendation of the GNSO.
>* dotcoms have collapsed in thousands, and Telcos have other bigger
>problems than risking huge monies in DNS, with ROI seriously doubtful at
>this point in time. I remember discussions I had in Montevideo with my
>former Telcos colleagues on the situation, and that was on the eve of
>9/11. When we all came back home, most of us travelling the very 9/11, we
>found a different world, and the little optimism that some might have had
>on a quick recovery had disappeared.
>* UDRP is an established fact (although the regular courts obviously have
>the last word on the issues). This process is also unlikely to be changed,
>and with it the other landmark for introduction of TLDs, namely the
>diversification of business models, policies, attitude towards trademark.
>This is gone forever, whatever the composition of the future Board.
All that is true for the Legacy. The Legacy will probably soon will have to
leard how to live in peace with the CENT and other ccTLD Alliances, with
emerging scSLDs and ITU-I to come.
>* The worry of the IAB, and of large part of the commoners in IETF, that
>some Internet-illitterate people could take over and destroy the Internet,
>has not materialized.
Let put this another way. The worry that some network-litterate could
expose too fast the Internet inadequacies has dropped when IAB understood
that network-litterates known about networks and the way not to destroy
them and that IAB will not come with the necessary solutions as the still
missing architectire modelization, IDNs show it or White House Internet
rebuilding plan (even if DC obviously accepted that internuts were not all
>The PSO has been able to dissolve itself easily, without danger of leaving
>ICANN without a strong supporter of the technical lobby. Besides, at least
>two of the signatories of the PSO-MoU were seen anyhow by the purists as
>an element of dilution of the technical backbone, more prone to industrial
>or governmental interests rather than to pure technology.
This is one of the concerns I have. What you call dillution is what I name
real life. PSO was a place were they could possibly build together instead
of building aside. The impact of IPv6 may far more important on the network
cohesion due to that?
>So, what is the real open issue? What is the real interest at stake in the
>next years? What are the foreseeable developments, dangers, mission, that
>the oncoming board has to deal with?
>To answer this, I would suggest to go back in time to the ICANN meeting
>(Yokohama, but I might be wrong) where two major players, Paul Twomey and
>Christopher Wilkinson, stood up to state that ICANN could not be ruled
>only by business interests: if that was happening (continuing?),
>governments would have to step in. Interestingly enough, Paul is now
>ICANN's CEO, while Christopher is non-voting member of the NomCom.
>So, what does this mean?
That Paul is infiltrating international administration for his career and
that Christopher watches the best interests of the users. What seems in
line with their jobs. And a good thing since everyone says that Paul is
oriented in life towards a common good role than towards a business
leadership. I do not really care if itis true, but he will have to go by
this image or waste his investment in that image.
>I would expect an ICANN BoD that will have some representation of the
>"public" interest, the users, the registrants, the individuals. Not to the
>extent of constituting a block that can be tempted to fight against other
>lobbies, but still a non-negligeable presence that will "legitimize" ICANN
>in the eyes of the laymen. Of course, the next consequence is that the
>voice of the AtLarge will be seeked and organized.
Seems contadictory? Seeked: OK. Organized or their organizations supported
through an better organized interface?
>Whether the masses are ready and willing to invest time and resources in
>participating to the ICANN process, that's another question, of which the
>answer is unknown to people without cristal ball. Ant that is the real bet
>and challenge: to move from the abstract declaration of principle of the
>need for individual stakeholder representation to the concrete work to
>make this representation a reality. I think that ICANN will remove the
>opposition it had (not in principle, but in the facts that rendered
>individual participation difficult and marginal), and that the page can be
>turned. Will we be able to grab the opportunity?
Frankly I think it is up to us. Our real role should not to express
personal opinions in here but to try to liaise to help developping our
private and common interest actions. We have to give our consummer
organizations the internet virus. To make them understand the need of an
internet consummer structure. Legally supported as such in each country.
>In other words, I'm moderately optimistic. Anyway, I guess in Montreal at
>the latest we will know...
There you are really optimistic :-)
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html