Subject: Re: What institutional form is needed instead of ICANN?

From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Aug 1999 20:45:03 -0400

In message <[email-masked]>, Ronda Hauben write
s:
>Brian
>
>>Please don't waste our time with this. The argument about the
>>creation of ICANN is long over and done with. Can we please
>>stick to IETF business on this list?
>
>But isn't who controls the IETF part of the IETF business?

Yes.  That isn't changing.
>
>Can you say why there has been so little public discussion
>of this important issue?

There's been lots of discussion, especially on the 'poised' mailing list.
>
>Without a variety of viewpoints and the discussion over such
>a significant change in the nature of the IETF isn't there
>a serious danger to the IETF and the Internet?

What change?  We went through this ad infinitum before ICANN was formed.  They 
have *0* influence on the workings of the IETF.  There was a rumor to the 
contrary, based on some ambiguous wording in the Green Paper.  But the
intent was never to have ICANN have any form of control over the IETF, and
this point has been clarified repeatedly.
>
>Is there some reason that those in the IETF who are making 
>the decision for the IETF's to support ICANN and be part of 
>it haven't encouraged more open discussion in the IETF and 
>on the mailing list?
>
>If ICANN can't stand public scrutiny, how can the IETF 
>be part of it?
>
>Thanks for any insight you can shed on what is happening
>with this all.
>
>Ronda
>
>
>

		--Steve Bellovin

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:31:18 -0500

>it haven't encouraged more open discussion in the IETF and 

There has been an enormous amount of discussion in the POISSON
WG, where the IETF discusses IETF process issues. 

>If ICANN can't stand public scrutiny, how can the IETF 

ICANN has had more public scrutiny than I would have
believed possible, has conducted an amazingly high fraction
of its business in public, and continues to do so. In any case,
the IETF is not part of ICANN.

You are looking for non-existent demons.

  Brian Carpenter
  IAB Chair

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:31:18 -0500

Brian Carpenter
  IAB Chair

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:40:58 -0700 (PDT)

> of its business in public, and continues to do so.

I completely disagree.

ICANN has operated with a degree of closure and secrecy that would do
justice to a spook agency.

ICANN has *NEVER* held an open board meeting.  ICANN has never explained
its decisions except on rare occasions, and even then the explaination was
in the most vague terms and with unsupportable claims of "community
consensus".

ICANN has excluded all individuals and non-commercial entities from any
full parity role with commercial interests despite ICANNs race to make
substantive policy decisions.

Indeed, the vast majority of those who participate in the IETF are not
permitted by ICANN rules to have any meaningful say in ICANN's decisions.  
That is unless one happens to be a for-profit corporation, a trademark
interest group, an ISP, or happen to be a domain name registry or
registrar for a top level domain.

Even the IETF, as an institution, is itself unable to become voting member
of the parts of ICANN that determine policies for domain names or the
allocation of IP addresses.

Yet, ICANN has already undertaken to begin applying a de-facto tax on
domain names (Congress objected, so it's on hold.).  There are rumors that
such a tax will be applied to IP address spaces.  (They call it a "fee",
but it's still money out of our pockets no matter what it is called.)

And despite the exclusion of interested parties, such as the people who
hold domain names, ICANN is very well down the road of adopting policies
that will make all domain names subject to uncompensated expropriation by
trademark owners.

ICANN is acting as The Internet Government, but without the checks and
balances that apply to governments.

Am I correct in my understanding that ICANN is paying the IETF's costs for
IANA "protocol parameter" services?

The scrutiny of ICANN has only just begun.  And it is well justified.

And so far, on those rare occasions when ICANN answers questions, ICANN
has failed to provide adequate answers.  There are inquiries proceeding in
several subcommittees of the US House of Representatives.

For more information one should look at:
	http://www.icannwatch.com/

And much of the history is documented at:
	http://www.domainhandbook.com/

I have many more comments on ICANN's at:
	http://www.cavebear.com/cavebear/growl/

		--karl--

---

From: Karl Auerbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:40:58 -0700 (PDT)

I completely disagree.

		--karl--

---

From: "Dustin Blanchard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:52:08 -0500

Enough about icann, it is not ietf business. Several good people who have
helped in many matters have left the list due to thes 30-40 messages a day
about irrelevant business.

---

From: "Dustin Blanchard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:52:08 -0500