Interesting People mailing list archives

IP: icann peace mission


From: David Farber <dfarber () earthlink net>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 12:09:50 -0500


-----Original Message-----
From: "Tom Weber" <tweber () wsj com>
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 09:34:11 
To: "Dave Farber" <farber () cis upenn edu>
Subject: icann peace mission

dave -- here's my column from today's WSJ. as threatened, i nominate *you*
for the general zinni role in the icann peace process. since this column
mentions the name "icann", i will spray my inbox with asbestos and await the
inevitable flames. cheers, tom


E-WORLD By Thomas E. Weber

Wanted: A Peace Envoy
To End Net's Bickering
Over Address System

03/25/2002
The Wall Street Journal
B1 (Copyright (c) 2002, Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)

DISPUTED TERRITORIES, bitter rivalries and endless bickering. No, it's not
the Middle East peace process. It's the Internet, which sorely needs its own
peace mission. An obscure but vital organization that helps the Net run
smoothly has gone from nonstop bickering to a full-blown meltdown.

The group is the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or
Icann. Its job is to coordinate the Net's address book, the system that
ensures e-mail goes where it's supposed to and Web addresses take you to the
right pages. The work isn't glamorous, but every person who uses the Net
relies on it being done correctly.

Now Icann is imploding. In recent days, prominent members of the technology
community have essentially called for Icann to be scrapped. An Icann board
member has sued the organization. And Icann's CEO has called for drastic
reform.

Sorting out who's right and wrong in this tech-heavy debate is next to
impossible. But practically everyone agrees that Icann is broken. The
question now is how to fix it.

To grasp the Icann problem, you need to understand exactly what the group
does. Here goes: To route information around the Internet, computers
translate user-friendly dot-com names into numbers known as Internet
Protocol, or IP, addresses. When your Web browser visits www.wsj.com, you're
actually traveling to 206.157.193.68.


AH, YOU SAY. Icann hands out the dot-com addresses. If only it were that
simple. Dot-com domain names are actually administered by so-called
registrars, foremost among them VeriSign. Icann's job is to set policies
about what kinds of names can exist (now there are new addresses that end in
".info," for instance) and who can parcel them out.

Esther Dyson, a technology guru and former Icann chairwoman, likens the
group's responsibilities to those of a water authority. "Most people just
want the water to show up," she says. But if a water authority's obscure
powers aren't used wisely and democratically, you can end up with
"Chinatown"-style intrigue.

Among the specific concerns: If corporations have too much say over the
address system, they might monopolize addresses and gouge users. But if
governments dominate, they could deny Net addresses to political dissenters,
stifling free speech. More practically, if Icann can't foster consensus on
technical issues, competing approaches could make the Net difficult to use.

But Icann has been getting bogged down in procedural matters. Arguments rage
over budgets, where to hold meetings and whether to make an agreement a
contract or a memo of understanding. Following the debate is like listening
to "Star Trek" fans argue over whether Capt. Kirk could defeat Picard. For
average Net users, it's irrelevant.

Nonetheless, the most heated Icann arguments have centered on how to give
average users a voice in the process. In 2000, an online election was held
to let Internet users elect representatives to the Icann board. (You
probably missed it: Only 3,449 votes were cast in North America.)

It was one of those at-large directors, a software developer named Karl
Auerbach, who last week asked a California court to compel Icann to show him
financial records. Icann says Mr. Auerbach won't agree to keep personnel and
other records confidential.

Mr. Auerbach's suit comes only a few weeks after M. Stuart Lynn, Icann's
CEO, rocked the technology community by calling Icann's structure
"impractical" and proposing a drastic makeover -- one that would eliminate
trustees nominated by average users and increase government participation.


NO WONDER some folks are sick of the whole mess. One of them is Dave Farber,
a respected computer-science professor at the University of Pennsylvania and
former chief technologist for the Federal Communications Commission. Last
week, Prof. Farber and two fellow tech mavens published an open letter
stating that Icann has "failed as an organization." The letter calls for
other groups to take on Icann's responsibilities until a permanent
replacement can be devised.

It's a tempting idea. But trying to fashion an Icann alternative will likely
reopen the same old acrid arguments over how best to represent the
Internet's constituencies. The original idea for Icann -- privatize work
being done by the U.S. government and give relevant groups a voice -- was a
good one. Scrapping Icann should remain a last resort.

Here's a better plan: send in a peace envoy. The Net community needs someone
to parachute in, forge a compromise and then get out. I propose Prof. Farber
himself. He knows the Internet well and respects users' rights, but he also
has a realistic understanding of the interests of governments and corporate
users.

When I told Prof. Farber I planned to nominate him, he chuckled, then added,
"I wouldn't say no." Some Icann combatants would inevitably object ("No!
Capt. Janeway could beat them both!") but there's no such thing as an ideal
candidate. Anyone who can't agree on Prof. Farber or a similarly qualified
individual won't compromise on anything else, either.

Will common users retain a direct vote at the end of this process? Perhaps
not. But at the very least, it's critical for Icann's reform to guarantee
that its meetings and records be public to hold the organization
accountable. Icann must be held to the standards of a public body. The Net
needs a representative oversight -- not an Enron.



For archives see:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


Current thread: