[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Subject: IP: more on GAO releases report on ICANN; critics say time to ditch it
>X-Sender: declan@mail.well.com >X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3 >Date: Sun, 09 Jul 2000 11:22:43 -0400 >To: politech@vorlon.mit.edu >From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com> > >********* > >http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37455,00.html >ICANN Gets Mixed Review >by Declan McCullagh (declan@wired.com) >4:30 p.m. Jul. 7, 2000 PDT >WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators have extended a cautious >blessing to the nonprofit corporation created to oversee Internet domain >names and addresses. [...] The GAO said, however, that it may not be legal >for the Commerce Department to turn over control of the "root server," the >master list of the allowable top-level domains. "It is unclear if the >(Commerce) department has the requisite authority to effect such a >transfer," the 45-page report said. > >The GAO report: >http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf > >********* > >>Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:50:59 -0400 >>From: Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu> >>To: declan@well.com >>Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project >> >>I would take Declan one step further and say that DNS was NEVER "privatized." >> >>By "privatization" I mean the creation of a clear and definite system of >>property >>rights that would pave the way for a competitive marketplace. The US Commerce >>Department did not do this. It contracted with a private sector >>corporation to >>take on some administrative functions related to making policy for DNS. >> >>That private corporation is becoming more and more governmental because >>of the >>power it holds over a unique essential facility (the root of the DNS, and the >>address space). >> >>Read the recent GAO report. The US government retains ultimate authority >>over the >>root. The report can't figure out whether the root and address spaces are >>"property" that can be turned over nor can it say whether Commerce Dept >>has the >>authority to turn that property over to anyone. So the government has just >>contracted out some of its functions. >> >>This gives us the worst of both worlds. No procedural protections of >>government, >>no competitive checks and balances from the marketplace. > >********* > >>From: "Erick R. Gustafson" <EGustafson@CSE.org> >>To: "'declan@well.com'" <declan@well.com> >>Subject: RE: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project >>Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:13:58 -0400 >>X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0) >> >>Private companies, non-profit organizations, or government entities it >>matters not, they will all act in their own best interests first. That is a >>central principle of public choice economics and public choice economics is >>at the root of the problem with ICANN. It should come as no surprise that >>ICANN's mission is growing or that corporations and non-profits seek to have >>influence over it. Each is only reacting to incentives in the political >>economy. The mistake is in creating ICANN at all. Order on the net, unique >>IPs and all can and should be left to private actors operating outside of >>political systems. I have unique credit card numbers, unique bank account >>numbers and other unique identifiers, all of which have been provided to me >>by the private sector because there is a market incentive to do so. The >>growth and popularity of the Internet ensures that similar results will be >>achieved for those who venture online. Telegraph and telephone companies >>conquered this problem and interconnected with each other a century or more >>ago (albeit on a smaller scale). >> >>The means to ensure the public has a voice is to eliminate the institutions >>(read ICANN) that act as enablers for corporations or strong-willed >>non-profits to unduly influence the process. ICANN cannot avoid becoming >>the tool of a corporation interest or political view. Consumers, and >>for-profit corporations reacting to their demands, will produce the most >>efficient marketplace possible -- one that solves the problems ICANN >>currently struggles with and overcomes any future mission ICANN dreams up. > >********* > >>Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:53:44 +0900 >>To: farber@cis.upenn.edu, declan@well.com, Barry Steinhardt <Barrys@aclu.org> >>From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> >>Subject: Re: IP: Civil liberties groups launch e-democracy, ICANN >> project >>Cc: ip-sub-1@majordomo.pobox.com, declan@well.com, >> Barry Steinhardt <Barrys@aclu.org> >> >> >>>>Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:22:54 -0400 >>>>To: declan@well.com >>>>From: Barry Steinhardt <Barrys@aclu.org> >>>> >>>>Increasingly, ICANN has been setting policies on issues that will have a >>>>significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of >>>>Internet users for " >> >>Dave, >> >>A little bit of rhetoric is as bad as a little bit of knowledge. >> >>Since ICANN relates only to IP addresses and DNS administration -- and >>notably has nothing at all to do with content -- how can it have any >>"significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet >>users". >> >>Rather than indulging in hyperbole, perhaps Barry would like to provide >>some basis for his sweeping claim? >> >>d/ >> >>=-=-=-=-= >>Dave Crocker <dcrocker@brandenburg.com> >>Brandenburg Consulting <www.brandenburg.com> >>Tel: +1.408.246.8253, Fax: +1.408.273.6464 >>675 Spruce Drive, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA > >********* > >>Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:57:14 -0700 >>To: declan@well.com >>From: Malcolm Hoar <malch@malch.com> >>Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project >> >>At 07:14 AM 7/7/2000 , you wrote: >>>[I don't think that Jamie and I are all that far apart. For instance, he >>>and I agree that there can be multiple namespaces with thousands, and >>>perhaps many more, top level domains. >> >>Declan, >> >>Adding more TLD's isn't going to achieve diddly-squat, IMHO. >> >>McDonalds will spend a crushingly large amount of legal effort >>controlling McDonalds @ any-new-TLD-you-can-think-of. Via proxies, >>if they need to, to circumvent any exclusionary rules. >> >>>It's true that a few large corporations appear to have a lot of >>>influence over ICANN, but I've been in Washington long enough to realize >>>that putting the U.S. government in control -- or worse yet, the UN or >>>ITU -- isn't going to improve the situation. >> >>Agreed. >> >>> More competition will. --Declan] >> >>Heh, like the 1996 Telecommunications Act? :-( >> >> >>-- >>|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| >>| Malcolm Hoar "The more I practice, the luckier I get". | >>| malch@malch.com Gary Player. | >>| http://www.malch.com/ Shpx gur PQN. | >>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > >********* > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology >To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html >This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ >--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [interesting-people Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC