This mailing list is no longer active and has been transitioned to discuss@1net.org. Members of the I-coordination mailing list have been moved to the new mailing list. To learn more, visit 1net.org.

[I-coordination] A different model

Bob Bruen korg at coldrain.net
Wed Dec 11 18:44:32 CET 2013


Hi Milton,

In line..

            --bob

On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>
>> founded in US jurisdiction (rather than CH which was my preferred option
>> at the time, or NL which others proposed). But all the same, USG influence
>> has been more threatened that real.
>
> This is a false claim that people (especially those not that closely 
> involved with ICANN decision making or not policy experts) keep 
> repeating. USG influence over the policy direction of ICANN was massive 
> until 2009, and has been somewhat diminished since. USG has consistently 
> pushed ICANN in various directions, some of which you may like, others 
> you may not like, but anyone familiar with the actual discussions and 
> negotiations between ICANN, Verisign and NTIA, and with the perennial 
> U.S. Congressional hearings that various lobbyists invoke, would never 
> say the US tether to ICANN makes no difference. And as anyone in 
> politics and military strategy knows, threats can be as effective as 
> action if your goal is to preclude certain paths from being taken.

     No one said there was zero inflence, but much of the criticism is
     hyperbolic because of the dislike of the US government.

     I think "massive" is hyperbolic.

> Of course, calling attention to US influence should _not_ be equated 
> with a belief that adding 192 other governments would make things 
> better. I am a consistent advocate of self-governance by the Internet 
> polity, and thus believe that no national governments should be calling 
> the shots here.

     I agree and I think this is important.
> ....

> ICANN's control of DNS root gives it the power to "license" registries 
> (via a Registry Agreement) and registrars (via the RAA). These contracts 
> are then used to impose practices on registries that are designed to 
> control not only their own conduct and certain aspects of industry 
> economics, but the conduct of their users as well. Simple example: 
> ICANN's RAA requires accredited registrars to make Whois data public 
> (any privacy issues here?) and to use the UDRP and numerous other 
> trademark rights protection mechanisms (trademark regulation with 
> implications for freedom of expression). I could go on, endlessly, as 
> someone with 15 years of experience with this regime. But I won't ;-)

    ICANN does not enforce the RAA, except when it comes to money. The
    whois issue is a really important one. I have been part of an effort to
    use whois data as a mechanism for shutting down spammers and other
    criminals for years. ICANN is protecting the registrars from having to
    actually make the data accurate.

    As far as privacy is concerned, no money making organization deserves
    privacy in the whois data. They already are public, generally through
    being licensed by a government at some level. Indivivuals are another
    issue, entirely.

    Perhaps it would have been better if .com and .org had continued the
    original restriction of who could domain names, instead of opening them
    up to everyone.

>> The best thing the IGF (and the Brazil meeting) could do is ban the
>> G word and separate the two discussions.
>
> Ain't gonna happen. For better or worse.
>
>
    For worse. And it will cause problems as we move along.

-- 
Dr. Robert Bruen
KnujOn Org
http://www.knujon.org
+1.802.579.6288




More information about the I-coordination mailing list