[ncdnhc-discuss] A statement on the ICANN "reform" proposal

[Dave Crocker]

At 12:04 PM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>At 8:17 AM -0800 2/26/02, Dave Crocker wrote:
>>At 10:15 AM 2/26/2002 -0500, Rob Courtney wrote:
>
>but the degree and type of that influence is something that those who 
>design ICANN have control over.

Thank you.  Nicely said.  It highlights exactly what is missing in these 
sorts of exchanges:

ICANN is not a design exercise.  It is tasked with ensuring continued 
operation of critical functions in Internet administration and operation.

Yes, one can make a design that has, or omits, anything one wants.

One cannot, however, make a successful ICANN that has a design that ignores 
that actual power of governments.

Giving governments a purely advisory role will work only if the governments 
are willing to accept that role.  Here we have been seeing that they are not.

Hence the goal is one of trying to find a balance that governments WILL accept.


>I think it is possible to describe, with clarity, every single one of the 
>things ICANN should be doing. As a strawman: ONLY those items for which 
>centralized control is NECESSARY to assure interoperability, data 
>integrity, the availability of the Whois, etc.

If one worries only about the narrowest of protocol issues, you are 
probably correct.

However ICANN must worry about ensuring that the name and number 
administration service actually works in this real world we all inhabit.  A 
working system must deal with more than a small set of protocol 
standards.  It must deal with its operation in a larger context.

Absence of a UDRP, for example, was in fact proving crippling.  Hence the 
need for a mechanism that dealt with a core set of registration disputes.

d/

----------
Dave Crocker  <mailto:dcrocker at brandenburg.com>
Brandenburg InternetWorking  <http://www.brandenburg.com>
tel +1.408.246.8253;  (new)fax +1.408.850.1850