[governance] IGF and TLDs

[Karl Auerbach]

On 07/01/2010 07:05 AM, Eric Dierker wrote:
> So Karl,
>
> Why are the big money players sticking with this ICANN myopia. I do not
> see it as cost effective or advantageous that they should stay in the
> ICANN sandbox. Where is the disconnect between policy in direction of
> expenditures and the technical possibility/reality?

People who are making a business investment want to minimize their risks.

It is risky (from a business point of view, not a technical one) to put 
money behind a TLD in a competing root system.

Why is it a risk?

Well first off we have to remember that this whole ICANN thing got kick 
started when Jon Postel did the very sane and prudent thing of trying to 
test whether the DNS protocol and root server failover behaviour is, in 
fact, as designed and as advertised.  (As in all things like this - 
whether it be DNS root services or electrical power transfer switches - 
it is sometimes necessary to test on live systems.)  Jon's reward for 
trying to protect the internet was to receive threats from the US gov't 
of criminal prosecution.  Those event led through a series of steps, but 
quite direct steps, to the establishment of ICANN.

The mentality that wanted to throw Jon Postel in jail for thinking of 
doing a controlled test whether DNS might collapse in the face of 
failure is a mentality which is merely napping, it is not gone.

So anyone considering going outside the ICANN system has to recognize 
that there are some minds, sometimes in high places, that might take 
strong exception to the degree of attempting to impose outlandish sanctions.

The second reason why it is a risk is work outside ICANN's root is that 
ICANN and the IAB have published some documents that seem more inspired 
to repress heretical thoughts than to illuminate technological 
constraints.  ICANN's is known as "ICP-3 - A Unique, Authoritative Root 
for the DNS" (http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-3.htm )

ICP 3 and the IAB peer to it are essentially the same kind of materials 
that were used to scare the public away from a perfectly fine 
alternative as occurred in the Hush-A-Phone case.  Back in 1950's when 
AT&T and the FCC swore up and down on a stack of bibles that a passive 
plastic hand, the Hush-a-Phone device, on a telephone handset would 
cause operators to go deaf and electrocute repair men up on telephone 
poles - See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hush-A-Phone_v._United_States

As viewed through the telescope of time we can see that the claims of 
AT&T and the FCC, a regulatory body captured at the time by AT&T, were 
entirely bogus fabrications devoid of technical merit designed to 
protect AT&T's business interests.

One might see parallels between AT&T and the FCC protecting the 
telephone monopoly and ICANN and incumbent registries protecting today's 
highly exclusive domain name guild.

We have to recognize that technical people are proud of their creations, 
and in the case of the phone systems and internet that pride is well 
justified.  There is a natural tendency in people to become conservative 
and protective of their great efforts and become somewhat resentful of 
new generations who alter their work or use it in ways that seem 
"different".  So there is no wonder that senior technical people 
expressed hyperbolic concern over the Hush-a-phone or the concept of 
competing roots.  Change always disrupts and discomforts; and while that 
disruption and discomfort is a concern that should be recognize, it is 
not in itself a sufficient reason to prevent change.

We ought to remember that the the Hush-a-phone case was the first crack 
in the vast totality of Ma Bell in the US; that crack spread over the 
years via cases like Carterfone and MCI, eventually leading to the 
flexibility that made the internet possible.

I am a strong believer that the concept of competing roots holds the 
answer to the Gordian knot of the TLD wars and largely obviates ICANN - 
see my note "What would the internet be like had there been no ICANN?" 
at http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000331.html  The part of 
concern here begins with "The Alternative History".

		--karl--


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t