Interesting People mailing list archives
IP: more on GAO releases report on ICANN; critics say time to ditch it
From: Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>
Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:58:31 -0700
X-Sender: declan () mail well com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:22:43 -0400 To: politech () vorlon mit edu From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> ********* http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37455,00.html ICANN Gets Mixed Review by Declan McCullagh (declan () wired com) 4:30 p.m. Jul. 7, 2000 PDT WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators have extended a cautious blessing to the nonprofit corporation created to oversee Internet domain names and addresses. [...] The GAO said, however, that it may not be legal for the Commerce Department to turn over control of the "root server," the master list of the allowable top-level domains. "It is unclear if the (Commerce) department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer," the 45-page report said. The GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf *********Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:50:59 -0400 From: Milton Mueller <mueller () syr edu> To: declan () well com Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project I would take Declan one step further and say that DNS was NEVER "privatized." By "privatization" I mean the creation of a clear and definite system of property rights that would pave the way for a competitive marketplace. The US Commerce Department did not do this. It contracted with a private sector corporation to take on some administrative functions related to making policy for DNS. That private corporation is becoming more and more governmental because of the power it holds over a unique essential facility (the root of the DNS, and the address space). Read the recent GAO report. The US government retains ultimate authority over the root. The report can't figure out whether the root and address spaces are "property" that can be turned over nor can it say whether Commerce Dept has the authority to turn that property over to anyone. So the government has just contracted out some of its functions. This gives us the worst of both worlds. No procedural protections of government, no competitive checks and balances from the marketplace.*********From: "Erick R. Gustafson" <EGustafson () CSE org> To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com> Subject: RE: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:13:58 -0400 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) Private companies, non-profit organizations, or government entities it matters not, they will all act in their own best interests first. That is a central principle of public choice economics and public choice economics is at the root of the problem with ICANN. It should come as no surprise that ICANN's mission is growing or that corporations and non-profits seek to have influence over it. Each is only reacting to incentives in the political economy. The mistake is in creating ICANN at all. Order on the net, unique IPs and all can and should be left to private actors operating outside of political systems. I have unique credit card numbers, unique bank account numbers and other unique identifiers, all of which have been provided to me by the private sector because there is a market incentive to do so. The growth and popularity of the Internet ensures that similar results will be achieved for those who venture online. Telegraph and telephone companies conquered this problem and interconnected with each other a century or more ago (albeit on a smaller scale). The means to ensure the public has a voice is to eliminate the institutions (read ICANN) that act as enablers for corporations or strong-willed non-profits to unduly influence the process. ICANN cannot avoid becoming the tool of a corporation interest or political view. Consumers, and for-profit corporations reacting to their demands, will produce the most efficient marketplace possible -- one that solves the problems ICANN currently struggles with and overcomes any future mission ICANN dreams up.*********Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:53:44 +0900 To: farber () cis upenn edu, declan () well com, Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> Subject: Re: IP: Civil liberties groups launch e-democracy, ICANN project Cc: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com, declan () well com, Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org>Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:22:54 -0400 To: declan () well com From: Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org> Increasingly, ICANN has been setting policies on issues that will have a significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet users for "Dave, A little bit of rhetoric is as bad as a little bit of knowledge. Since ICANN relates only to IP addresses and DNS administration -- and notably has nothing at all to do with content -- how can it have any "significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet users". Rather than indulging in hyperbole, perhaps Barry would like to provide some basis for his sweeping claim? d/ =-=-=-=-= Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com> Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com> Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA*********Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:57:14 -0700 To: declan () well com From: Malcolm Hoar <malch () malch com> Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project At 07:14 AM 7/7/2000 , you wrote:[I don't think that Jamie and I are all that far apart. For instance, he and I agree that there can be multiple namespaces with thousands, and perhaps many more, top level domains.Declan, Adding more TLD's isn't going to achieve diddly-squat, IMHO. McDonalds will spend a crushingly large amount of legal effort controlling McDonalds @ any-new-TLD-you-can-think-of. Via proxies, if they need to, to circumvent any exclusionary rules.It's true that a few large corporations appear to have a lot of influence over ICANN, but I've been in Washington long enough to realize that putting the U.S. government in control -- or worse yet, the UN or ITU -- isn't going to improve the situation.Agreed.More competition will. --Declan]Heh, like the 1996 Telecommunications Act? :-( -- |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| | Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | | malch () malch com Gary Player. | | http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~********* -------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current thread:
- IP: more on GAO releases report on ICANN; critics say time to ditch it Dave Farber (Jul 11)