[81891] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: NTIA will control the root name servers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
Sat Jul 2 22:19:14 2005
Date: Sun, 3 Jul 2005 07:48:43 +0530
From: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
Reply-To: Suresh Ramasubramanian <ops.lists@gmail.com>
To: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org, deepak@ai.net
In-Reply-To: <20050702115607.28740.qmail@xuxa.iecc.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2 Jul 2005 11:56:07 -0000, John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> wrote:
>=20
> ICANN's leadership has long claimed and probably believed that the DOC
> would eventually cut them free. Of course other governments have never
> been thrilled that the root belongs to the US Gov't, but treatment of
> country domains has in practice carefully avoided antagonizing
> governments, dating back to the Haiti redelegation in the Postel era.
>=20
> The DOC is merely saying "don't hold your breath." Given ICANN's less
> than stellar record, nobody should be surprised.
>=20
I at least kind of expected this.. and the language in that paper is
heavily geared towards "status quo". So far what we have is a lot of
people who dont like icann, or perhaps have got disillusioned with it
for various reasons, sounding off on the IP list and elsewhere .. and
a lot of comment on various ops and public policy lists.
What worries me is the tendency among several governments to send in
submissions to the WSIS/WGIG process in support of greater government
involvement and/or oversight in the process (which is not necessarily
a bad thing) but quoting a lot of wrong reasons, and [conveniently?]
forgetting the difference domain names and IP addresses on a fairly
regular basis
However governments are going to sooner or later get themselves a
stake in this process - though hopefully not by the almost anarchical
means being suggested so far. Will be very tough to fight that -
especially as the language in the paper also leaves the door open for
more government involvement, and recognizes the fact that for several
governments, ccTLD is [or has become, once this brouhaha started] a
sovereignity issue.
Someone have any idea for a workable compromise that bridges the
current ITU positions with the status quo? Answers that wont work and
have been fairly freely bandied about - "get rid of ICANN" and "damn
the ITU", or various more polite and diplomatic variants of those ..
--=20
Suresh Ramasubramanian (ops.lists@gmail.com)
