[ncdnhc-discuss] what IF

[Jefsey Morfin]

Dear Jim,
I thank you for your analysis. What you basically say is that should the 
ICANN be blown up,

1. the Registrars and Registries would - at the end of the day - be of more 
under direct yet boring concern of the DoC, so probably under Congress and 
Justice scrutiny. What is good for us.

2. the TLDs would quickly form a working group to keep the DoC informed of 
the root updates and no more TLDs would be added. This means no more risk 
of artifical collision with open TLDs.

3. IP allocation would continue being "manipulated" (if it is the right 
word) but more transparently and two additional NICs would be formed to the 
benefit of the Internet community. This sounds positive, and the real issue 
being IPv6, probably Asia and Europe would be the leaders anyway.

Does anyone see any reason why we want to keep the ICANN?
Jefsey


On 19:38 22/03/02, Jim Fleming said:
>From: "Jefsey Morfin" <jefsey at wanadoo.fr>
> > Just a question to those who really know...
> > What if the ICANN closed shop?
> > Could someone(s) provide a fair timing of what would happen and when?
> > when / who would notice?
>
>I you compare ICANN to a major labor union, you will see that it
>is useful for "management" to push the complaint department and other
>human resource problems off on to the "union". ICANN is the perfect group
>for the Registrars and Registries to "use" to direct customers who complain
>about fraud, poor treatment, service, etc. Since ICANN apparently does
>almost nothing to enforce the reems of contracts they have coerced people
>into signing, they end up having no impact on their supporters and they offer
>the public a false agency to appeal to with problems. If people did not have
>ICANN, they might be more likely to call the U.S. Government. Those people
>do not want to take the calls, and therefore will be happy to keep ICANN
>in place.
>
>Without ICANN, the legacy root server operators would operate their
>servers just like the other root server confederations. It appears that a 
>working
>set of about 256 TLDs is now common. Those TLD managers would likely
>form a trade association, and prevent any more TLDs from being added.
>
>The real problem that must be addressed is the unfair IP address allocations
>from the Postel Regime. ICANN appears clueless and ARIN is really in
>control, with RIPE and APNIC below ARIN in the pecking order. Without
>ICANN, ARIN would pop to the top and two other NICs would likely be
>added to make it appear as though there was some fairness. Since there is
>a very tight coupling between ARIN and the legacy root servers, the ICANN
>insiders would become more visible operating in those structures. In other
>words, ICANN is now a structure to help distract people from what the
>I* society insiders are doing, manipulating the address allocations. When
>Postel created ICANN, it was clear to many people that it would be a
>smoke-screen to hide what was really going on at ARIN, RIPE and APNIC
>which used to report directly to Postel. When he passed away, ICANN
>quickly replaced him in the structure and is now a solid part of the
>Internet Labor Union.