[governance] please read: APC text on Forum function

Thu Sep 29 10:39:26 EDT 2005

This sounds like a distorted version of the following (real) set of facts: 
ICANN for some time took the view that if a ccTLD refused to sign an 
agreement with it (promising to do whatever ICANN told it to) and/or 
refused to pay what ICANN demanded, then ICANN would act very very very 
slowly on IANA updates if the ccTLD wanted to change contact details and, 
more importantly, even if the ccTLD need to change the IP address of the 
registry due to changing providers/equipment/whatever.   (ditto 
redelegations within the country). This had operational consequences and 
remains one of the chief exhibits for the thesis that ICANN has done more 
operational harm than good.

To the US government's credit, in respons to complaints from unhappy 
governments, the MOU was amended to forbid this behavior and IANA, as I 
understand it from the absence of subsequent complaints, did in fact clean 
up its act.

I have frequently argued, and believe, that any attempt by the US or 
anyone else to remove a ccTLD from the root would fail for three reasons. 
First the root server operators would rebel (they'll put with a lot but 
not that); Second the ccTLDs would rebel even up to the point of splitting 
the root; Third, it wouldn't actually work since a goverment could set up 
its own DNS or just send around files of IP numbers linking to directory 
services by other means as a temporary workaround.

For all the above reasons, I believe the threat that the US goverment 
would be dumb enough to try to remove a ccTLD is remote; alas, ICANN did a 
mild form of that with its IANA games -- but even that won't happen again.

On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:

> This gets emotions high. Also they are not making a difference between
> oversight of new names and existing one (especially TLDs) and also the
> difference between management of  IP address allocation issues which is not
> really under ICANN or US gov as such. DNS wise, The Somalia? And Libya?
> examples were being circulated as saying the US can get a CCTLD off the
> Internet if they like to. Apparently coincidentally or NOT, these countries
> were in discussions or something with the US when it happened.
>
> As far as I know, the individuals running the master and the copies around
> the world of the root server, will usually not allow this to happen. It may
> have happened because the administrator did not pay their dues for the CCTLD
> or something. Between this and IP issues, there may also be concern that as
> we go IP NGN globally, allocation issues will also be important and not sure
> they understand how this will be done. I was involved in APNIC';s early days
> and I do know misconceptions governments have about this. Being part of and
> having a say in APNIC is not something they know how to do, as these are new
> cultures to them.
>
> Getting the facts right would certainly help diffuse the emotions running
> high in Geneva. Not break it but diffuse it.
>
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts and ideas Ronda.
>
> Laina
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben
> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 3:55 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene
> Cc: 'Lee McKnight'; wdrake at ictsd.ch
> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>
>
> About 'end-to-end' and 'open architecture'
>
> Actually the architectural principle for the internet was 'open
> architecture' which meant that all the info about the the communicating
> networks would function as peers of each other,rather than requiring that
> any one become a component of another."
>
> A definition of open architecture is "Open architecture...describes the
> structure of the Internet, which is built on standard interfaces, protocols,
> a basic data format, and a uniform identifier or addressing mechanism. All
> the information needed regarding the interconnection aspects is publicly
> available."
>
> The end to end principle has been promoted as the essence of the Internet,
> but the Internet is not any single network (which goes from one end to
> another end.). The Internet is a network of networks.
>
> So it is important that this interconnection of dissimilar networks be
> recognized in characterizing the Internet, as this is the conception of its
> origin and what its nature is. This is what makes it possible for so many
> dissimilar networks to be interconnected in today's Internet.
>
> Ronda
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
> http://www.circleid.com/article/96_0_1_0_Chttp://www.circleid.com/article/96
> _0_1_0_C
>
> http://umcc.ais.org/~ronda/new.papers/birth_tcp.txt
>
>
> On Thu, 29 Sep 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed with you Lee. There is a need to remind people about the
>> openess of the Internet and the spirit in which it was created and
>> spread around the world. In our statement, we tried to remind
>> delegates that the Internet was created by individuals with a high
>> sense of shared responsibility and trust, and any efforts for IG,
>> whether improving the status quo, creating a forum and/or new
>> oversight mechanisms, should all be done within these same spirit.
>>
>> Currently, as Amb Klarkin pointed out, we are at a unique juncture of
>> public and private international law coming together. It has happened
>> before from the 60s to 90s, with the rise of MNCs and international
>> law moving towards the application of "soft laws" and increase of
>> private international law applications. Now we have the civil society
>> equation, which is new to some agencies especially the likes of ITU.
>> It is a very unique juncture of the creation of a "new form of
>> cooperation" between stakeholders and a new form of "soft law" (even
>> moving beyond what we have in PIL....a term used in public
>> international law vis a vis MOUs e.g. lke the one we had on GMPCS on LEOs
> etc..).
>>
>> Laina
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
>> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
>> Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:21 PM
>> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> Subject: Re: [governance] please read: APC text on Forum function
>>
>> Karen, Bill,
>>
>> I appreciate your intent Karen and APC's intent but agree with Bill
>> that 'binding international agreements' on openness is a
>> contradication in terms that will never fly.
>>
>> Language more along the lines that the forum's efforts should keep in
>> mind the need to preserve the Internet's essential features, such as,
>> 'openness etc..' might have the opposite effect of making agreement
>> easier, since then the forum is signalling the techies that it will not
> muck things up.
>>
>> Lee
>>
>> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>> School of Information Studies
>> Syracuse University
>> +1-315-443-6891office
>> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>>
>>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 09/29/05 5:55 AM >>>
>> Karen,
>>
>>>> In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape
>> of
>>>> the Internet there will be a need to concretize binding
>> international
>>>> agreements that relate to:
>>>>
>>>> -        the architectural principles of the Internet, including
>>>> interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle
>>
>> I am very strongly opposed to putting this in the forum, and believe
>> it will provide the USA and business with a big opening to reject the
>> forum outright.  I hope you will reconsider, it's dangerous.
>>
>> Rest is consistent more or less with IGcaucus etc.
>>
>> BD
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's @#$% hot here.<--
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance