Re: ICANN bashing (was Re: Who controlls the Internet?)

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 10:57:26AM +0200, David Conrad wrote:
> Bill,
>
> On Jul 25, 2010, at 10:21 PM, bmanning () vacation karoshi com wrote:
> >     except ICANN has presumed for itself an operational role.
>
> ICANN, since its inception, has been the IANA functions _operator_. It inherited the role IANA staff performed prior 
> to ICANN's creation.  As far as I am aware, other than DNSSEC stuff (e.g., handling the root KSK), there has not been 
> a significant change in the operational role ICANN performs beyond what has been requested by the community (if any).

        and here we see how english is a poor language.
        yes, ICANN is the current IANA functions _operator_.  The IANA _never_
        ran/operated network infrastructure (root server operations) prior to ICANNs
        assumption of the role.   This is the distinction. Perhaps w/o a difference.

 
> >     it has taken on root server operations for some years now
>
> Yes. I think the folks who run L can be pretty proud of their achievements. Want to compare root server operations?  
> :-)

        Yes they do a fine job. But root server operations is not in ICANNs charter or
        mission. Their stated role, when they took it over from USC was as a temporary
        steward, until they could find someone to take it on.  Only later did they 
        back away from that statement and claimed it for their own.

> >     and is trying to take over root zone editorial control.
>
> Actually, no, it isn't. The US Department of Commerce has been pretty clear that they are happy with the current 
> model in which ICANN receives and vets root zone change requests, DoC NTIA authorizes those requests, and VeriSign 
> edits the root zone and publishes it. Despite some portions of the ICANN community not being happy with this state of 
> affairs, I'd be surprised if this changed anytime soon and I'm not aware of anyone in ICANN actively pursuing a 
> change.

        You describe the current state of affairs very well. From a reasonably recent counterpoint,
        there were several models proposed for the recently augmented root zone mgmt task.  One
        of the proposed (and rejected) models showed a much larger role for ICANN in the root zone
        generation process.  Those of us who reviewed these models (in the NTIA NoI) saw this
        as a (perhaps reasonable) way to reduce the roles played by the other two actors.

> Regards,
> -drc
> (no longer working for ICANN, but feeling a need to defend it against baseless bashing)

        
Regards,
--bill
(not baseless bashing, just pointing out some facts)
>