Let's talk about ICANN

Mon Dec 12 18:35:23 UTC 2005

Hannigan, Martin wrote:

> I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG?

I strongly believe the WSIS news was disturbing and of significant 
operational interest - what would have happened if the UN simply 
"decided" that ICANN shouldn't keep the powers it now has and "decided" 
to create a new group to have those powers?  What would root server 
operators do?  In particular, what would the root server operators 
outside the US do?

I personally don't believe ICANN should be under the thumb of the US as 
it currently is.  Unfortunately, as I see it the WSIS discussions were 
not on the right track to FIX this problem, they were treating it as a 
political problem when really it's just an organizational problem - 
ICANN should not be controlled by any governmental organization (US or 
UN) it should be controlled by those it serves (the networking 
community).  ICANN's tabling of the .xxx proposal due to US pressure was 
a really stupid move and will cause the groups petitioning for the US 
oversight to end to ramp up their efforts.  I'm worried that this will 
come about in a very messy way, causing operational problems.

Do we wait until those operational problems occur, or do we take action 
now to try to ensure that changes are made in an operationally sound 
fashion?  In other words, do we (the network operations community) ramp 
up efforts to get ICANN to become an organization run by its members and 
no longer held "accountable" to the US government, or do we wait until 
politicians "fix" this problem their way?  When was the last time the 
network operations community was happy with a government "solution" to a 
problem facing network operations?  Look at all the bad anti-spam laws 
that abound.  Look at all the bad intellectual property laws that 
abound.  Look at how these laws result in problems for network 
operators, especially for networks that cross political boundaries.  We 
don't need more (or different) government "oversight" of the internet - 
IMHO we need effective self-governance.

jc