Re: [ga] WLS Suggestion

[kent@songbird.com]

On Sat, Aug 24, 2002 at 07:17:58AM -0700, Patrick wrote:
> 
> I think that the failed experiment that is ICANN illustrates that a
> private body should not be in the role of regulating monopolies.

To the extent that people have tried to force ICANN into a quasi
governmental role of a regulator, with all the trappings of elections
and so on, it has been a failed experiment.  But if you operate from the
premise that ICANN has *never* been in the position of regulator, then
it has done quite well. 

> They have
> neither the financial means, nor the will.

Precisely correct.  ICANN was never intended to be a regulator, and,
contrary to popular delusion, it has *never* had the will to be one. 

As far as funding is concerned, even for its true restricted role, ICANN
is very underfunded.(+) The funding required to deal with the imaginary
"powerful ICANN" role would be vastly larger. 

> It is a job best left to governments.

And the part of government that has power to regulate domain registries,
and ICANN as well, is the part that deals with anti-trust issues.

It's worth noting that there is absolutely nothing in the bylaws or
structure of ICANN that have the magic ability to turn it into a
regulator, or to grant it more power.(*) ICANN is constrained at a much
more basic level, because its only instruments are contracts.  This
means that whatever policies ICANN may adopt through its policy-making
process can *always* be trumped by the legal realities of contract
negotiations.  In concrete terms, it doesn't matter what policies ICANN
comes up with -- if a large registry doesn't sign the resulting
contract, the policy is meaningless.  Of course, there are things that
ICANN can do to try to cajole the registry into signing contracts.  But
mostly that consists of persuading entities with bigger clubs that they
ought to lean on the registry. 
 
(+) There are a number of very mundane, essentially clerical tasks that
ICANN deals with that simply take human beings to deal with -- eg,
dealing with the large volume of email that is sent to the
"abuse@iana.org" address.

(*) I think most people realize that a small non-profit corporation
can't simply put "We are the regulators of the Internet" in its bylaws,
and actually regulate the Internet.  But there are many people who
simply don't understand that putting "We are the regulators of the
Internet, and we elect our directors and are therefore legitimate" in
the bylaws doesn't work any better. 

>  While I can't say I'm
> particularly happy with my governments track record on that point as
> of late, at least I have some semblance of representation, and my
> governments pockets are deep enough to engage in long, drawn-out suits
> involving monopolists. 

Precisely.  I'm absolutely amazed at the level of agreement we have 
reached :-)

Kent
--
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