IP: ICANN's Karl Auerbach responds to Joe Sims over .kids domain

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

>Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 12:04:59 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com>
>To: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>Subject: Re: FC: ICANN replies to Politech post about House bill and .kids
>In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010706111252.0378a410@mail.well.com>
>
>
>On Fri, 6 Jul 2001, Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > [Perhaps I have done ICANN a disservice by suggesting that it is "becoming
> > just another regulated federal agency."
> > .... See below for a note from
> > Joe Sims on behalf of ICANN. --Declan]
>
>Joe Sims does not speak for ICANN.
>
>As for my own point of view as a member of the Board of Directors of
>ICANN:
>
>Yes, there are thousands, probably tens of thousands, of bills submitted
>every year into the hoppers of legislatures and administrative agencies
>around the world.  And a lot of those do not become law.
>
>But many do.
>
>Any time members of the legislative body of the United States go so far as
>to submit a draft bill that not only affects ICANN, but indeed directly
>names ICANN and mandates ICANN behaviour, then as a Director I have to sit
>up and take notice.
>
>It simply would not be prudent to stick my Director's head in the sand
>and pretend to see nothing.
>
>I do not consider it appropriate management to bluster, as Sims does,
>against a situation and pretend that it has gone away.
>
>Unlike Sims, I am Director of ICANN and I am accountable for ICANN's
>actions.  I am not free to live in a fantasy world in which the United
>States Congress is of no more import than a small cloud in an otherwise
>clear sky.
>
>Personally, I think that the bill has some troublesome aspects - for
>instance, given that the US Government, not ICANN, controls the root zone
>via a contract with Verisign, the bill could simply take the form of a
>mandate to the Dept of Commerce to take the appropriate steps without any
>involvement from ICANN at all.
>
>But I find a lack of wisdom in any top-down imposition of "chartered" or
>limited purpose top level domains, particularly one in which the subject
>matter is as subjective and personal as "appropriate" content for
>children.  (One has to wonder at the amount of the content that would be
>considered appropriate by both the parents of a five year old Pakistani
>Islamic girl and the parents of a fifteen year old Danish boy.)
>
>I am perfectly happy to let private companies try to find their way
>through such a maze.  But it seems rather an inappropriate role for a
>national government, particularly given the extraterritorial impacts.
>
>The bill also falls victim to the commonplace belief that the domain name
>system is the only naming system for the Internet, and that the Internet
>is merely the world wide web.
>
>Content labelling by use of domain name names is a very naive, and
>bludgeoning, way to make use Internet technology as a tool of government.
>
>                 --karl--
>



For archives see: http://www.interesting-people.org/