[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
NSI and ICANN agreement only basis for greater instability for Internet
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: NSI and ICANN agreement only basis for greater instability for Internet
- From: Ronda Hauben <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Sep 1999 23:38:59 -0400 (EDT)
In a recent post about the ICANN/NSI announcement someone on
a mailing list I am on tried to assure others on that mailing
list and commented that the agreement would "supposedly will
put to rest all that inconvenient squabbling".
However, the problem with ICANN is *not* inconvenient squabbling.
And though the U.S. media has tried to present the problem with
ICANN as only a factional fight between ICANN and NSI, that is
*not* the reality.
The ICANN structure and conception are the result of serious misconceptons
about the nature of the Internet and how far certain business interests
can go to seize control of essential Internet functions, and still
have the Internet function in a way that will make it possible to
continue as an Internet, rather being split apart.
The Internet requires scientific and accountable administration.
The U.S. government activity creating ICANN as a way to throw its
support to certain corporate entities to vie for control of
essential functions of the Internet is the opposite of what was needed.
The essential functions of the Internet require protection from
governments and to be put in the hands of scientific administration
That is the process that made it possible for the Internet to
develop. That is the process that needs to be understood for
the Internet to continue.
So called "private sector" control via a so called "nonprofit U.S.
corporation" is *not* an entity that can be held accountable to
protect the essential functions of the Internet from being the
continual target of the fight of vested interests.
ICANN is under the control of whom? Accountable to whom?
And Ralph Nader's so called proposal to CPSR shows that he
has no understanding of the nature of the Internet nor the
problem with ICANN. His proposal is intended to prettify what
has been exposed to the world as a power grab by the U.S. government
to give certain U.S. corporate entities control over essential
Internet functions. Having a multilateral agreement of nations
wouldn't change that as they have no way to have scientific
leadership and oversight over the essential Internet functions.
This multilateral agreement would only be a rubber stamp for
ICANN's dirty deeds.
There is *no* basis to give the essential functions of the
Internet to a private entity.
These essential functions have been in public hands and their
administration has functioned in a way that has had an
obligation for public accountability. This system needed
to be strengthened, *not* destroyed, as it has been by the
creation of ICANN.
The proper form for the administration and ownership and control
of the functions essential for the Internet, of the root
server system, the protocols creation and decision process, the
IP number allocation, etc. is *not* a private form.
There is a need to understand what the form was that made it
possible for these functions to be protected from "vested"
interests and how to strengthen that form. That is *not*
what ICANN represents.
Those who care about the continued development of the Internet
will recognize the need to protect its essential functions
from vested interests. How that is to be done needs to be
explored based on understanding how that has been done
in the development of the Internet.
My proposal to the U.S. Dept of Commerce last year before they
set up ICANN gave a means for cooperative effort of computer
scientists from those countries interested in trying to be
part of understand the problem and then proposing a solution.
My proposal gave a means for creating a prototype to make it
possible for those nations interested in providing the needed
protection to work together.
My proposal gave a means for creating an online form to help
in the process.
My proposal is online at
ICANN does none of these. It hasn't identified what problem
really needs to be solved, and so is only setting a basis for
vested interests to make their power grabs for control of
the Internet and all its users.
So the ICANN/NSI agreement is only the basis for a much more
serious squabbling and a basis for ever greater instability
for the Internet and its users.
Netizens: On the History and Impact
of Usenet and the Internet
in print edition ISBN 0-8186-7706-6