North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: UN Panel Aims to End Internet Tug of War by July

  • From: Deepak Jain
  • Date: Tue Feb 22 14:41:17 2005

ICANN won't say yes. Now that a new fee for TLD operators goes to ICANN, they won't want to give it up. Simple non-profit business practices. If ITU operates it, they would keep the existing fees and then add a few others. I think we've already seen the bottom in terms of fees to operate a registry. Even as everything to do the job gets cheaper, the fees to kick upstairs will probably keep going up.

To keep this on-topic, I think that the operational internet won't have much to say as long as the control is managed/moved seamlessly and no unusually draconian policies are put _into practice_. I'm positive there are already some pretty draconian polices on the books, but because they haven't become operational issues yet, no one worries about them.


Owen DeLong wrote:
What if the UN says ITU should run the TLDs, ICANN says yes, and, a
significant portion of the operational internet says no?


--On Tuesday, February 22, 2005 5:53 AM -0800 Ross <[email protected]> wrote:

No government will ever have the internet's best interest in mind when
they talk about controlling it. Luckily government control has been kept
some what to a minimum so far but it's growing rapidly and this is
another attempt for a government body to "control" the internet.

I wonder what new rules will be put in place if the ITU gets control?

I also wonder if the ITU can really take control. What if the U.N. says
the ITU should run the TLD's and ICANN says no?

On Mon Feb 21 18:15:00 PST 2005, Joel Jaeggli <joelja""> wrote:</joelja>

&gt; When I hear Robert Mugabe talk about internet governance I don't
&gt; get the impression that he has the interests of the people of
Zimbabwe at
&gt; heart.
&gt; joelja
&gt; On Tue, 22 Feb 2005, Dave Crocker wrote:
&gt;&gt; On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:45:12 -0500, Scott W Brim wrote:
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; I'm intrigued at the failure to distinguish between
the web and
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; email, given that spam is a messaging phenomenon, not
a publishing
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt; phenomenon.
&gt;&gt;&gt; &gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; It's actually a failure to distinguish the web from the
&gt;&gt; i was probably too cryptic. yes, they are using the term 'web'
to mean 'the internet'.
&gt;&gt; the problem is that professional writing needs to be careful,
and a failure at such a basic level as using web to apply to email does
not bode well for the utility of the article...
&gt;&gt; d/
&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt; Dave Crocker
&gt;&gt; Brandenburg InternetWorking
&gt;&gt; +1.408.246.8253
&gt;&gt; dcrocker a t ...
&gt;&gt; WE'VE MOVED to:
&gt; --
&gt; Joel Jaeggli Unix Consulting
[email protected]
&gt; GPG Key Fingerprint: 5C6E 0104 BAF0 40B0 5BD3 C38B F000 35AB
B67F 56B2