[governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration

[Ronda Hauben]

I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible.

What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was
not a helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere.

The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide
models that are helpful.

The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it 
occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the 
world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process
that carries forward this model.

It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place.

It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what
had been developed that was a significant new model, and to see
the problems this new model had to deal with. The model is the Internet,
*not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create
something like ICANN.

So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates
a new diversion.

Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet"
gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to
make the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

(see especially chapter 7 for example)


I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes
once there was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some
legal entity.

By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had
been abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process.

Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed
to act as blinders.

with best wishes

Ronda


On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

>
> Thanks Paul for that perspective. I agree that we need to see what has not
> worked i.e. is it because of USG oversight or lack internal controls, or
> perceived possibilities of "doomsday" or lack of trust with it based in the
> US or ....."whatever".. i.e. what is the problem we are trying to fix...what
> have we not managed to fix post ICANN formation (before we jumping to a
> conclusion on the solution).
>
> Having said that, I agree with your choice of words in the last para "that
> ICANN was originally suppose to have or perhaps could still have". For me, I
> realise that ICANN actually started off on the wrong foot, as it was created
> having short-circuit of an open international collaborative process (which
> ironically the USG started themselves as way back as 1996- the Green and
> White Paper process and the IFWP process). So this did not give it a good
> start anyway. If you recall Stuart Lynn one of the former CEOs of ICANN
> himself announced in 2002 or was it 2003 that ICANN was broke and the
> process started again to try and fix it again. People like Adam who were
> part of the whole process since 1996, would be able to give some answers
> here.
>
> I guess it may be that one could ask- Is it harder to fix what is broke or
> create something new. Again, once we focus on what we exactly we would like
> to fix, the appropriate solutions will become clearer.
>
> Just thought I would add my 2cts worth.
>
> Laina
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie
> Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:41 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration
>
>
> # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland # or
> Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could accuse # them of
> having an imperial agenda.
>
> i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation with
> international governance-- is the right steward for top level naming and
> numbering authority.  ICANN seems to have some problems fulfilling that
> role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal controls or
> whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral government over
> the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to have, and perhaps, could
> still have.
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance