[ga] Re: [ncdnhc-discuss] Internet is global=we need central planning

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com>]

James and all,

  This is more of a process issue that can and many times does lead to
bigger problems than it would solve.  Centralized planning is not widely
done in the commercial world for good reasons.  It is very unlikely
that ICANN or even the ITU, which Richard Hill effectively admitted
in an earlier response to Dave Crocker, would be either expectable
or effective.  Therefore it is seemingly clear that diversified coordinated
planning with the active participation of any and all stakeholders is
ICANN's only chance of survival and/or long term health.

  We [INEGroup] recently have been solicited to potentially
testify for congress in their upcoming hearings on ICANN
and its structure/reform.  We also agree to what Jamie here,
has eluded to indirectly that ICANN is effectively selling off
parts or the operational side to various entities in order to
gather funding.  As ICANN is supposed to be a 501 (c3)
organization this poses a serious breach in law with it's funding
sources.  However as ICANN has been very unsuccessful in
garnishing donations for funding, such activities are not all that
unexpected, but should not be allowed.

James Love wrote:

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Crocker" <dhc2@dcrocker.net>
> > hint:  The question that was put forward was to ask how the "devolved"
> > structure provides anything that is simpler, more efficient, or more
> > fair.  That is not a matter of mission creep, James, it is a matter of
> > design quality for an administrative mechanism.
>
>       With regard to authorizing new TLDs, there is no compelling reason to
> have this entry industry regulated by a single global body, and indeed few
> precedents to suggest this single global regulator is a good idea.  There
> are issues that require global coordination, and issues that do not.  ICANN
> wants to do them all, and sell off the opportunity to be regulated, as its
> main fundraising activity.
>
> Here are a few sections from my ICANN Reform comments on this point:
>
> http://www.cptech.org/ecom/icann/reform-comments.html
>
> 14)  The ICANN board needs to do something that does not
>   come naturally.  It needs to give up power, and allow others
>   to make more of the decisions.  Specifically, it should
>   allow national governments or regional DNSO like bodies to
>   authorize new TLDs, subject to coordination with ICANN on
>   issues such as the uniqueness of TLD strings, the
>   maintenance of minimum technical standards and those policy
>   decisions which must be made at a global level, such as, for
>   example, the UDRP or some issues relating to whois data.
>
> 15)  The government model for this might work as follows.
>   If the European Commission wanted to authorize the ICFTU to
>   create .union, or the World Health Organization to create
>   .health, or if the US Department of Commerce wanted to
>   authorize the creation of .movie, this could proceed, with
>   minimal interference from ICANN.   Here I would suggest a
>   simple model where countries would authorize the initial
>   application, and ICANN would only review those aspects of
>   the proposal that ICANN needed to review.
>
> 16)  A regional DNSO model would be similar.  The regional
>   DNSO would do many of the same things that ICANN does now,
>   but without the incentives to block entry by new TLDs.  Any
>   regional DNSO that acted slowly, like ICANN does now, would
>   simply sit by and watch other regions launch new TLDs.
>
> 17)  In the event that there was a controversy over the
>   allocation of a particular string (such as .asia, .law,
>   etc.), ICANN could resolve such disputes.  But there is
>   little reason for ICANN to be engaged in the type of detail
>   it now addresses in regulation of gTLDs.  Note that from
>   1995 to 2000 more than 100 new ccTLDs were added to the root
>   without harm to the Internet, and without ICANN style
>   regulation.  To the degree that there are issues concerning
>   use of dictionary names, ICANN could ration or limit the
>   number of dictionary names any one country or region could
>   use, in relevant languages.  ICANN could also address
>   complaints about confusingly similar TLD strings.  The
>   advantage of decentralization of other decisions is that
>   different decision making bodies will innovate or protect
>   different values.  Europe might provide for stronger
>   protections for privacy of personal information, or more
>   detailed consumer protection rules.  The US might do more
>   (or less) in terms of addressing pricing issues.  Some
>   cultures might have different views of the uses of certain
>   SLDs.  In fact, one observes differences on these issues in
>   the current ccTLD market.  Diversity of regulatory regimes
>   on issues that do not require common global approaches is a
>   good thing, not something to eliminate.
>
> --------------------------------
> James Love mailto:james.love@cptech.org
> http://www.cptech.org +1.202.387.8030 mobile +1.202.361.3040
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss@icann-ncc.org
> http://www.icann-ncc.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 121k members/stakeholdes strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number:  972-244-3801 or 214-244-4827
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208


--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html