ICANN bashing (was Re: Who controlls the Internet?)

Mon Jul 26 09:30:52 UTC 2010

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
> 
> On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
> > 	except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
> 
> ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It inherited the role IANA staff performed prior to ICANN's creation.  As far as I am aware, other than DNSSEC stuff (e.g., handling the root KSK), there has not been a significant change in the operational role ICANN performs beyond what has been requested by the community (if any).

	and here we see how english is a poor language.
	yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_.  The IANA _never_
	ran/operated network infrastructure (root server operations) prior to ICANNs
	assumption of the role.   This is the distinction. Perhaps w/o a difference.

 
> > 	it has taken on root server operations for some years now
> 
> Yes. I think the folks who run L can be pretty proud of their achievements. Want to compare root server operations?  :-)

	Yes they do a fine job. But root server operations is not in ICANNs charter or
	mission. Their stated role, when they took it over from USC was as a temporary
	steward, until they could find someone to take it on.  Only later did they 
	back away from that statement and claimed it for their own.

> > 	and is trying to take over root zone editorial control.
> 
> Actually, no, it isn't. The US Department of Commerce has been pretty clear that they are happy with the current model in which ICANN receives and vets root zone change requests, DoC NTIA authorizes those requests, and VeriSign edits the root zone and publishes it. Despite some portions of the ICANN community not being happy with this state of affairs, I'd be surprised if this changed anytime soon and I'm not aware of anyone in ICANN actively pursuing a change.

	You describe the current state of affairs very well. From a reasonably recent counterpoint,
	there were several models proposed for the recently augmented root zone mgmt task.  One
	of the proposed (and rejected) models showed a much larger role for ICANN in the root zone
	generation process.  Those of us who reviewed these models (in the NTIA NoI) saw this
	as a (perhaps reasonable) way to reduce the roles played by the other two actors.

> Regards,
> -drc
> (no longer working for ICANN, but feeling a need to defend it against baseless bashing)

	
Regards,
--bill
(not baseless bashing, just pointing out some facts)
>