POST:
The readings for Wed, 10/23, are:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/readings.html#10/23
In particular, skim the post below
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/blackhole.html
Defend or refute the following:
ICANN is the best we've got, let's work to make it succeed. The ITU is too political and we don't need governments.
Governance of DNS and related standards is in capable hands.
I feel that a smaller, centralized, nonpolitical organization such as ICANN is better for making decisions concerning Domain Names and Numbers as opposed to a global-government institution such as the ITU.
Explanation of why a centralized/ordered organization such as ICANN must exist rather than a decentralized/chaotic system to develop DNS standards:
David Post makes some excellent remarks on the benefits of a decentralized/chaos system has worked to create the NET as it is today, and I agree with him. I agree that without this chaos system, the NET would not exist. The NET today, however, is different than the NET of strict academia and communication. Internet business has taken a stronghold on the direction of the NET and the chaos system is no longer as applicable today as it was in the pre-commerce days. The current commerce-NET needs a point-of-contact when policies are made, for there needs to be a group that can be held accountable for decisions that affects business. This is why a group such as ICANN for maintaining domain naimes must exist and a decentralized/chaos system can longer work. (Although I still believe a chaos system would produce better solutions, unfortunately this better solution must suffer because e-commerce requires a point-of-contact).
Explanation of why a small, nonpolitical organization such as ICANN must be used for DNS rather than a politcal/governmantion group such as the ITU:
1. Smaller "town meetings" make participation by a
motivated invidual much easier. It is easier for an pro-active
individual to make an impact in a small group. Think small Bostonian
town meetings versus large city halls. An international group, one
must encounter a lot of overhead in order to be heard, let alone make an
impact.
2. ITU would be too slow in making policy decisions. This
slowness might severely hamper the progress of the NET. The NET needs
a smaller group that can make decisions efficiently and not slow down the
progress of the NET.
3. Members of the ITU can have a conflict of interest. There
will be no insurance that policies passed governing the NET will be decided
soley by issues concerning the NET. For example, if European countries
are upset that the US does not support the Kyoto treaty, they may vote on
some measure to hurt American industries (ie, revoke the Ford.com website
from Ford Motorcars). This internet policy is influenced by issues
unrelated to the internet.
4. The ITU, in particular will have a conflict of interest because
they are telecommunications giants. They most likely won't support the
Internet to progress to broadband connections--wanting it to stick to
modems, cable modems, and DSL lines.
NOTE: ICANN does have its problems. Foremost, ICANN lacks authority to enforce its rules. This is the same "problem" decentralized/chaotic decisions have...ICANN requires that others voluntarily comply with their policies. In the pre-commerce NET, users would more readily oblige to such policies for "the good of the NET." In the current commerce-NET, compaines will most likely not comply with policies that detract from their business even if the policy is "good for the NET." Unfortunatley, the only true way to give ICANN authority to enforce its policies is to give it a political/governmental backing, thus negating ICANN's nonpolitical characteristic and making ICANN's independence moot.
RESPONSE:
The readings for Wed, 10/23, are:
http://www.cs.duke.edu/courses/cps182s/fall02/readings.html#10/23
In particular, skim the post below
http://www.temple.edu/lawschool/dpost/blackhole.html
Defend or refute the following:
ICANN is the best we've got, let's work to make it succeed. The ITU is too political and we don't need governments.
Governance of DNS and related standards is in capable hands.
From what I gather: ICANN has lots of problems because it is a loosely built administrative structure with over flexible rules and squabbling vested parties which often leave because of dissension and a supposed lack of usefulness (they come in on a committee, work for 9 months solving a problem, only to have their painstakingly crafted solution rejected or over-ridden in the middle with little consultation or warning).
The ITU has much more precedence for communications issues, more rigid rules, and unprecedented authority to just say “it's gonna be done this way!” However, it also has many many more vested parties (governments, tel com companies) with amassed resources and influence. Allowing such a organization to take over the structure management of the Internet could open it up to over-regulation by the government and monopolization by hardware manufacturers (people in a non-gambling state are not to access offshore servers, and we are using Cisqo's specially built NoGAMbL4U routers to accomplish this access control). So, the ITU is not the best replacement for ICANN
It's not so much that ICANN doesn't have authority, it just seems to be afraid to use it. It fears that if it goes “everyone use this RBL system to stop spam” than the spam-makers will scream “hey, we have a right to spam!” and the mail-admins will scream “but I don't like the way RBL handles things” and RBL will go “we need more money to handle all these mail servers”. Thus, ICANN ends up in flames and DNS fall-down-go-boom. Unfortunately, ICANN's present state means that a task force set up to research the spam problem that came up with this resolution... will just get rejected despite months of work and the opinions of other board members. The resulting squabbles make onlookers question their dedication to transparency and effective management.
So, I think ICANN is the correct idea, but that the people running it need to go ahead and solicit some “put foot down” decisions and then have a wide array of Internet interests vote on them, and then DO it. If a newer idea or system comes up, then maybe it will get voted on and put up in it's place, but it's much better than having no actions for fear of distaste, or having governments come in with some regulations that they would /love/ to implement.
I agree!
ICANN has severe shortcomings that inhibit it from becoming an influential and productive organization, but even with these problems, and a bulky and political international organization such as ITU is definitely not the answer.
You hit the nail on the head that the best plan of action is to somehow give ICANN authority to back its policies. It is essential, too, that that authority is procured not by government-backing. Taking your thoughts that ICANN needs to simply "put its foot down", it made me think of this idea:
ICANN needs to develop itself into a bully-pulpit--much how the President uses his sature to influence others to follow his policies. Currently ICANN lacks this stature. Perhaps the way for ICANN to gain this leadership level is to overhaul itself so that it makes decentralized, efficient, and meaningful policies that do not ignore its members. Once ICANN establishes itself as a meaningful organization that makes clear-headed decisions, then it will have established a bully pulpit from which it can pressure others to comply without government enforcement.