IP: note from Randy Bush on ICANN reformation

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Let me add that Randy is in fact "an old boy" and one of the saner (he would
object I suspect) people I know.

Dave

------ Forwarded Message
From: "Mike O'Dell" <mo () ccr org>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002 10:28:10 -0500
To: dave () farber net
Subject: note from Randy Bush


Randy has been around for a long time, as an IETF
area director and chief engineer at several ISPs.
he's also done a lot of missionary work helping
emerging areas deploy the Internet.
he is also brutally rational.

------- Forwarded Message

MessageName: (Message 613)
From:    Randy Bush <randy () psg com>
Date:    Sun, 24 Feb 2002 21:33:53 -0800

Subject: Re: ICANN reformation


from: <http://www.icann.org/general/lynn-reform-proposal-24feb02.htm>
[ and the announcement
  <http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-24feb02.htm>  ]

"It is now more than three years since the creation of ICANN, and there
are some real accomplishments: the introduction of a competitive registrar
market, the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, the creation of seven new
global Top Level Domains."

<flame>

the registrar market is not usefully competitive.  the seven new tlds are
a failure.  the udrp is kind of a success, but it took tanks and guns to
keep icann's lawyer from handing it to washington trademark lobbiests and
the recording industry.  and the new gtlds are failures, many are not even
working and neustar had another big layoff last week.

the story i get is that the board, after much 'discussion' has let this
brilliant idea float.  at least the following were arguments
  o icann is running out of money
  o icann needs $20m, half, $10m, is to run the root servers
  o the dnso has been a failure
  o governments will give icann money

imiho,

  o again, icann is more interested in, and totally focused on, arranging
    power rather than providing simple stewardship and service.  icann is
    brilliant at rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.  the problem
    is they have the internet on board.

  o why does icann have to spend $10m to run the root servers when it
    never usd to cost anything?  they're run voluntarily.  heck, i know
    isps who give free circuits to them!

  o icann could be run for $1-2m/yr
    - scale down operations and fancy meetings *completely*, meet at
      ripe, inet, ...
    - get back to simple stewardship and management
    - *earn* the cooperation of cctlds, registries, and they can
      support a *small* icann, ...
    
  o the idea that governments will give icann money is probably flawed.
    the criminal mob would be more likely to do so, and would likely
    extract less of a price.

  o explaining reality to the current icann powers that be is extremely
    hard.  explaining it to governments, who, under this plan, would be
    given vast power, will be virtually impossible.  clueless bureaucrats
    can actually *break* the internet.

  o the failure of the dnso is merely the failure of one of icann's
    sillinesses.  it is no loss, it is a demonstration of a fatal
    misunderstanding of reality.

  o icann only needs to
    - coordinate allocation of address space to the RIRs
    - maintain the root zone file
    - slowly try to get MsOU with the folk icann actually serves

    one computer scientist used to do this as a part time job.  how much
    of a mountain can we make of a molehill?

  o the board should immediately install a president, or whatever the
    position is called, who actually remembers how to serve the internet
    simply, with constructive cooperation, and less than $20m/yr.  as no
    one with clue will want to do this job for a long time, it likely
    needs to be a pro tem appointment.

  o if the president pro tem is not technical, get a cto or vp tech pro
    tempore.  it will need an understanding of the technology to scale
    icann back without damaging anything.

  o there is one good thing for scaling icann down now.  the pressure for
    new gtlds has to be less, seeing the great financial boon the seven
    new ones have not seen.

  o another is that the constituencies are tired, years of doing nothing
    but spending money on fancy hotels and creating massive hot air.
    years of the icann process may have actually filtered some clue into
    the players.

i suspect that only the combined voices of the isps, ietf, registries,
etc. can insert some rationality into this craziness.

get icann under control, shrink it back down to something small, and
SERVE the internet, stop trying to rule it.

</flame>

randy

  -- you are free to redistribute this message


------- End of Forwarded Message



------ End of Forwarded Message

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