FC: John Gilmore on ICANN, Net-stability, and response to terrorism

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Oct 01 2001 - 07:13:14 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: "No friends of liberty in foxholes?" -- a reply to Reason column"

    *********
    
    To: declanat_private, gnuat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Richard Forno on ICANN and Net-stability against terrorists
    In-reply-to: <5.0.2.1.0.20010928135313.02283030at_private>
    Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2001 21:10:05 -0700
    From: John Gilmore <gnuat_private>
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Forno; ICANN is only using 9/11 as
    an excuse for delaying on its REAL work, which is to create real
    competition and protect free expression in the domain name space.  But
    since it's structured to be dominated by people who profit from the
    lack of real competition, and who use trademark claims to censor free
    expression, any excuse for further delay will do.
    
    ICANN's major role in DNS stability and robustness has been to make
    the DNS *less* robust.  It protected NSI's monopoly on top-level
    domains, thus centralizing the vast majority of domain names into the
    facilities of a single self-interested organization.  The single best
    thing ICANN could do for DNS stability would be to produce a real
    competitive market in top-level domains.  This would spread domain
    service sites all over the world, into dozens or scores of independent
    organizations, vastly reducing the risk from NSI's central points of
    failure.  But this is exactly the action that ICANN has been refusing
    to take since it was created.  And now it is saying that it must put
    off this work yet again, in order to examine "Internet stability".
    That statement is best interpreted as self-serving garbage.
    
    The domain name system was quite robust during the events of 9/11.
    Stability and robusness have been part of the DNS since long before
    ICANN existed, and the independent root operators have been at the
    heart of creating and executing on this robustness.  (See, for
    example, RFC 2010, "Operational Criteria for Root Name Servers",
    at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2010.txt).
    
    (ICANN has no larger role in Internet security or stability -- nor
    should it.  Its mandate is limited to administration of names and
    numbers.)
    
    I do take exception to Forno's suggestion that the root servers be
    confiscated by the US Government.  The existence of independent and
    worldwide root server operators has been a good check on the power of
    all the overblown parties in the domain name policy debates -- NSI,
    the US Government, AND ICANN.  ICANN has been trying to centralize
    its control over these operators by trying to force them to sign
    contracts.  They should refuse, and ICANN should go back to its real
    work of creating a free and competitive market in domain names.
    
    	John Gilmore
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 08:08:03 PDT