North American Network Operators Group
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: NTIA will control the root name servers?

  • From: Suresh Ramasubramanian
  • Date: Sat Jul 02 22:20:22 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:reply-to:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=KpbBRHP7KN9vi+fEnEY+7LmK548hRxORDIVQtCdnrvkAh1ukkF6GhRsyGuN52FuzucP/HNKZPn9HmnnW3OC4LevDtGH6TAUUhc0TT5TqzlZ/0rJ64qpg2IHNvg4dnWOuxxM2oj0FDQUzUEXFQDNnvBgcSjTeOCxVJCWX2AzgsGk=
On 2 Jul 2005 11:56:07 -0000, John Levine <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> ICANN's leadership has long claimed and probably believed that the DOC
> would eventually cut them free. Of course other governments have never
> been thrilled that the root belongs to the US Gov't, but treatment of
> country domains has in practice carefully avoided antagonizing
> governments, dating back to the Haiti redelegation in the Postel era.
> 
> The DOC is merely saying "don't hold your breath."  Given ICANN's less
> than stellar record, nobody should be surprised.
> 

I at least kind of expected this.. and the language in that paper is
heavily geared towards "status quo".  So far what we have is a lot of
people who dont like icann, or perhaps have got disillusioned with it
for various reasons, sounding off on the IP list and elsewhere .. and
a lot of comment on various ops and public policy lists.

What worries me is the tendency among several governments to send in
submissions to the WSIS/WGIG process in support of greater government
involvement and/or oversight in the process (which is not necessarily
a bad thing) but quoting a lot of wrong reasons, and [conveniently?]
forgetting the difference domain names and IP addresses on a fairly
regular basis

However governments are going to sooner or later get themselves a
stake in this process - though hopefully not by the almost anarchical
means being suggested so far.   Will be very tough to fight that -
especially as the language in the paper also leaves the door open for
more government involvement, and recognizes the fact that for several
governments, ccTLD is [or has become, once this brouhaha started] a
sovereignity issue.

Someone have any idea for a workable compromise that bridges the
current ITU positions with the status quo?  Answers that wont work and
have been fairly freely bandied about -  "get rid of ICANN" and "damn
the ITU", or various more polite and diplomatic variants of those ..

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian ([email protected])