FC: GAO releases report on ICANN; critics say time to ditch it

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

*********

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,37455,00.html
ICANN Gets Mixed Review
by Declan McCullagh (declan () wired com)
4:30 p.m. Jul. 7, 2000 PDT
WASHINGTON -- Congressional investigators have extended a cautious blessing 
to the nonprofit corporation created to oversee Internet domain names and 
addresses. [...] The GAO said, however, that it may not be legal for the 
Commerce Department to turn over control of the "root server," the master 
list of the allowable top-level domains. "It is unclear if the (Commerce) 
department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer," the 
45-page report said.

The GAO report:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf

*********

> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 17:50:59 -0400
> From: Milton Mueller <mueller () syr edu>
> To: declan () well com
> Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project
>
> I would take Declan one step further and say that DNS was NEVER "privatized."
>
> By "privatization" I mean the creation of a clear and definite system of 
> property
> rights that would pave the way for a competitive marketplace. The US Commerce
> Department did not do this. It contracted with a private sector corporation to
> take on some administrative functions related to making policy for DNS.
>
> That private corporation is becoming more and more governmental because of the
> power it holds over a unique essential facility (the root of the DNS, and the
> address space).
>
> Read the recent GAO report. The US government retains ultimate authority 
> over the
> root. The report can't figure out whether the root and address spaces are
> "property" that can be turned over nor can it say whether Commerce Dept 
> has the
> authority to turn that property over to anyone. So the government has just
> contracted out some of its functions.
>
> This gives us the worst of both worlds. No procedural protections of 
> government,
> no competitive checks and balances from the marketplace.

*********

> From: "Erick R. Gustafson" <EGustafson () CSE org>
> To: "'declan () well com'" <declan () well com>
> Subject: RE: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project
> Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 15:13:58 -0400
> X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2448.0)
>
> Private companies, non-profit organizations, or government entities it
> matters not, they will all act in their own best interests first.  That is a
> central principle of public choice economics and public choice economics is
> at the root of the problem with ICANN.  It should come as no surprise that
> ICANN's mission is growing or that corporations and non-profits seek to have
> influence over it.  Each is only reacting to incentives in the political
> economy.  The mistake is in creating ICANN at all.  Order on the net, unique
> IPs and all can and should be left to private actors operating outside of
> political systems.  I have unique credit card numbers, unique bank account
> numbers and other unique identifiers, all of which have been provided to me
> by the private sector because there is a market incentive to do so.  The
> growth and popularity of the Internet ensures that similar results will be
> achieved for those who venture online.  Telegraph and telephone companies
> conquered this problem and interconnected with each other a century or more
> ago (albeit on a smaller scale).
>
> The means to ensure the public has a voice is to eliminate the institutions
> (read ICANN) that act as enablers for corporations or strong-willed
> non-profits to unduly influence the process.  ICANN cannot avoid becoming
> the tool of a corporation interest or political view.  Consumers, and
> for-profit corporations reacting to their demands, will produce the most
> efficient marketplace possible -- one that solves the problems ICANN
> currently struggles with and overcomes any future mission ICANN dreams up.

*********

> Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 16:53:44 +0900
> To: farber () cis upenn edu, declan () well com, Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org>
> From: Dave Crocker <dcrocker () brandenburg com>
> Subject: Re: IP: Civil liberties groups launch e-democracy, ICANN
>   project
> Cc: ip-sub-1 () majordomo pobox com, declan () well com,
>         Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org>
>
>
> > > Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2000 11:22:54 -0400
> > > To: declan () well com
> > > From: Barry Steinhardt <Barrys () aclu org>
> > >
> > > Increasingly, ICANN has been setting policies on issues that will have a
> > > significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet 
> > > users for "
>
> Dave,
>
> A little bit of rhetoric is as bad as a little bit of knowledge.
>
> Since ICANN relates only to IP addresses and DNS administration -- and 
> notably has nothing at all to do with content -- how can it have any 
> "significant impact on the free expression and privacy rights of Internet 
> users".
>
> Rather than indulging in hyperbole, perhaps Barry would like to provide 
> some basis for his sweeping claim?
>
> d/
>
> =-=-=-=-=
> Dave Crocker  <dcrocker () brandenburg com>
> Brandenburg Consulting  <www.brandenburg.com>
> Tel: +1.408.246.8253,  Fax: +1.408.273.6464
> 675 Spruce Drive,  Sunnyvale, CA 94086 USA

*********

> Date: Fri, 07 Jul 2000 07:57:14 -0700
> To: declan () well com
> From: Malcolm Hoar <malch () malch com>
> Subject: Re: FC: Jamie Love replies on ICANN and e-democracy project
>
> At 07:14 AM 7/7/2000 , you wrote:
> > [I don't think that Jamie and I are all that far apart. For instance, he 
> > and I agree that there can be multiple namespaces with thousands, and 
> > perhaps many more, top level domains.
>
> Declan,
>
> Adding more TLD's isn't going to achieve diddly-squat, IMHO.
>
> McDonalds will spend a crushingly large amount of legal effort
> controlling McDonalds @ any-new-TLD-you-can-think-of. Via proxies,
> if they need to, to circumvent any exclusionary rules.
>
> > It's true that a few large corporations appear to have a lot of influence 
> > over ICANN, but I've been in Washington long enough to realize that 
> > putting the U.S. government in control -- or worse yet, the UN or ITU -- 
> > isn't going to improve the situation.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >  More competition will. --Declan]
>
> Heh, like the 1996 Telecommunications Act? :-(
>
>
> --
> |~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
> | Malcolm Hoar           "The more I practice, the luckier I get". |
> | malch () malch com                                     Gary Player. |
> | http://www.malch.com/               Shpx gur PQN.                |
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

*********


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------