Re: [ga] ICANN's replacement
I wish to jump into this. To traditionally bring a different vision from the implied AngloSaxon language binary choice (ICANN or NGO, centralized or democratic, Information/Telecom, etc.) introducing an usual Indo-European ternary (Bandwidth/Network/Usership) thinking. On 02:02 19/07/03, DannyYounger@xxxxxx said: The first question that I would pose is this -- do you have a viable candidate organization in mind? Are you referring to the ITU, some other IGO/NGO, or would management of the DNS become a function administered by the United Nations? The first need is to have each organization involved in the governance to organize its proper interface (structure, mind, etc. ) into the "I-Sector" (the Information, or better, the Intelligent Sector). ITU should do that, ICANN should continue to tune accordingly its relations with GAC, ccTLDs, ITU, @large etc. A lot has been achieved already, even if not necessarily on good initial premises. We need to see the result as filtered by Paul Twomey. The second question would be this -- in your opinion, under what set of circumstances would the U.S. Department of Commerce willing cede control of the Root to this entity? Never. The question is not to relinquish "authority" (power on commercial registries and competence on true broadcasted root data). It is not to _pretend_ being alone. The Legacy root must stay (and technically evolve) as controlled and managed by ICANN: the same as the other roots are to be controlled and managed by their own authorities. Stability and development will come from root administrators coopetition and cross consistency checking. IMHO this will be soon a technical obligation anyway (from the developments like the first ones resulting from dot-root I hope to document soon through an IETF draft, and I presented at the ISOC-France DN2003 meeting). Third question -- is it your expection that this replacement entity will allow for democratically elected elements in its Board Room, or is it more likely that member governments will ultimately represent the world's Internet users? The users are the ultimate technical center as the raison d'être of the Internet. But the same as internet is not ICANNnet, it is not the global Internet community network. It is the internetting of technologies, and of the real and virtual networks of all the users communities (national, local) using a same and common bandwidth. Our first duty is to the ecology of this bandwidth, each in our own way because it is made of our lines and machines. The important is that the network system build over that bandwidth may work: it is not polluted (spam), it is not subject to DoS, it is not subject to out of context economical racket, to the technical IETF autocracy. It must support hybrid open solutions, including the TCP/IP one, it must be politically free from any single control if we want to avoid cyberconflicts and waring, detrimental to everyone on a common system. Here as for the biomass, for oil, for the genome, for software patents, for economy, for Iraq, etc. we have the same different style of thinking between US, North and South. This is something he WSIS makes plain. My hope is that the internet case (as younger, very technical, directly involving users etc.) might be easier to address than others and may be serve as an example, not for a world government but for a better world governance. I look for no one to replace ICANN. I look for ICANN, ITU-I, ccTLDs, services and community networks, large nomenclatures, Governments as national community trustees; etc. to grow and stabilize and to concert. They may decide to be supported by one or several ad-hoc lean structures. Mainly over the four agreements, names, addresses and routes repository systems the network infrastructure needs (should be made of). Thank you. jfc
|