I'm surprised that I've yet to see any mention here on NANOG about the
Internet Governance Forum discussions that were held at the WSIS /
United Nations summit in Tunisia a few weeks ago. From my reading of
the various articles, it appears that the EU together with some
developing nations wanted to wrest "control of the Internet" away from
the US and ICANN. Was everyone unaware of this, or were you just
counting on Vint Cerf to talk sense into the delegates from the other
countries?
<http://news.com.com/U.N.+says+its+plans+are+misunderstood/200
8-1028_3-5959117.html>
Then there was ICANN's sudden delay of discussion/approval of .xxx:
<http://news.google.com/news?q=icann+xxx>
followed by their approval of .asia:
http://news.google.com/news?q=icann+asia
Is anyone here paying any attention to any of this?
jc
I'm on the 2006-2009 NRO Address Supporting Organization Advisory Council
(www.nro.com) (www.aso.icann.org) and was at the Vancouver meeting. There were
quite a few people from the NANOG community at the ICANN meeting in Vancouver.
I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG?
-M<
I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG?
i have no opinion whether it is or not. have fun with the
mailing list panel :-).
but i do know that *discussing* whether it is on topic or
not belongs on nanog-futures. <grin>
randy
Are you saying there is no operational impact in the decisions made by ICANN?
That's not how I read the comment.
The impact of ICANN on NANOG would be on topic. A general "let's talk about ICANN" is best done in a forum designed for discussing ICANN.
It's not a sin to discuss ICANN on NANOG, but it's "barking up the wrong tree." If anyone has any questions or concerns about any organization, go to an appropriate forum. Don't talk about an organization (or person) behind its back.
Hannigan, Martin wrote:
I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG?
I strongly believe the WSIS news was disturbing and of significant operational interest - what would have happened if the UN simply "decided" that ICANN shouldn't keep the powers it now has and "decided" to create a new group to have those powers? What would root server operators do? In particular, what would the root server operators outside the US do?
I personally don't believe ICANN should be under the thumb of the US as it currently is. Unfortunately, as I see it the WSIS discussions were not on the right track to FIX this problem, they were treating it as a political problem when really it's just an organizational problem - ICANN should not be controlled by any governmental organization (US or UN) it should be controlled by those it serves (the networking community). ICANN's tabling of the .xxx proposal due to US pressure was a really stupid move and will cause the groups petitioning for the US oversight to end to ramp up their efforts. I'm worried that this will come about in a very messy way, causing operational problems.
Do we wait until those operational problems occur, or do we take action now to try to ensure that changes are made in an operationally sound fashion? In other words, do we (the network operations community) ramp up efforts to get ICANN to become an organization run by its members and no longer held "accountable" to the US government, or do we wait until politicians "fix" this problem their way? When was the last time the network operations community was happy with a government "solution" to a problem facing network operations? Look at all the bad anti-spam laws that abound. Look at all the bad intellectual property laws that abound. Look at how these laws result in problems for network operators, especially for networks that cross political boundaries. We don't need more (or different) government "oversight" of the internet - IMHO we need effective self-governance.
jc
...
I would think that ICANN is off topic for NANOG?
...
(a) Why would you think that? I would have thought it spot on.
(b) Would that prevent discussion here? 